Case ID: f-appx_429/html/0668-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brenda J. LINDSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-35668.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 27, 2011.
    Brenda J. Lindsey, Seattle, WA, pro se.
    Sherida Colvin, James G. Zissler, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brenda J. Lindsey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a request for a continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lindsey failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her suspensions and termination were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. See Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 640-42, 646; see also Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 875 n. 9 (9th Cir.2001) (‘“decisions interpreting [Title VII] are persuasive authority for the construction of [WLAD]’ ” (alterations in original) (quoting Xieng v. Peoples Nat’l Bank, 120 Wash.2d 512, 844 P.2d 389, 392 (1993))).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lindsey’s request for a continuance under Rule 56(f) to conduct additional discovery because Lindsey failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1100-01.

Lindsey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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