Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0967-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jennifer HO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick DONAHOE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-15373.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 25, 2011.
    Jennifer Ho, Oakland, CA, pro se.
    Neill Tseng, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jennifer Ho appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action against the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ho failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she complied with the administrative exhaustion requirement of timely contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a) (prior to filing an employment discrimination lawsuit, a federal employee must initiate contact with an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory act); see also Kraus, 572 F.3d at 1043 (failure to comply with forty-five-day EEO contact requirement is “ ‘fatal to a federal employee’s discrimination claim’ in federal court” absent waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling) (quoting Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir.2002)).

Ho’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Ho’s “Motion for Granting Appellant’s Appeal” and “Motion for Case Decision” are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.