Maria Feria v. Devry University, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 13 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA FERIA, No. 14-56166
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02111-R-VBK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Erroneously Sued As DeVry Inc,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.
Maria Feria (“Feria”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of DeVry University, Inc. (“DeVry”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the
facts and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Earl v.
Nielsen Media Res., Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011).
1. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the wrongful
termination in violation of public policy claim. Feria failed to allege sufficient
facts that she was actually or constructively discharged. See Turner v. Anheuser-
Busch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022, 1025, 1027, 1030 (Cal. 1994).
2. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the California
Labor Code §§ 1102.5(b) and (c) claims. Feria was not subjected to an actionable
adverse employment action, primarily because she was not actually or
constructively discharged. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123,
1142–43 (Cal. 2005) (defining adverse employment action); see also Edgerly v.
City of Oakland, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425, 430–31 (Ct. App. 2012); Mokler v. Cty. of
Orange, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568, 580 (Ct. App. 2007). Feria has also not met the
statutory requirements because she made only an internal complaint, rather than
filing a report with “a government or law enforcement agency.” Cal. Lab. Code
§ 1102.5(b) (2003). Thus, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the
district court properly granted summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
2