Sandie Chu v. Patrick Donahoe

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDIE P. CHU, No. 14-16467
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-02660-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Sandie P. Chu appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her employment action alleging race and national origin discrimination in violation
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Chu’s Title VII
race discrimination claim because Chu failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more favorably or
whether defendant’s asserted non-discriminatory reason for involuntarily
reassigning her was pretextual. See id. at 1155-56 (providing framework for
analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media
Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing ways plaintiff
can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiff’s burden is not
onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable
dispute as to pretext).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16467