Case ID: f-appx_379/html/0641-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anastasia MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-15720.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010.
    Filed May 18, 2010.
    Curtis G. Oler, Esquire, Law Offices of Curtis G. Oler, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Sallie Peirce Gibson, Esquire, City Attorney’s Office, Lauren M. Monson, San Francisco City Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge and MARTINEZ, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has not shown that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons defendant has offered for any actions it took against her are a pretext for discrimination. See, e.g., Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1105-07 (9th Cir.2008); Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 269-71 (9th Cir.1996). Nor has plaintiff shown that defendant took an adverse action against her because she engaged in protected activity. See, e.g., Surrell, 518 F.3d at 1107-08. And, none of the conduct plaintiff alleges occurred was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment. See, e.g., Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792, 798, 800-01 (9th Cir.2003); Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir.2000).

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