Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0375-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Susan BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
    Susan Bailey, pro se.
    Neda N. Dal Cielo, Esquire, Benjamin A. Emmert, Esquire, Nathalie Anh-Truc Le Ngoc, Littler Mendelson P.C., San Jose, CA, for AB Car Rental Services, Inc.
    
      Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susan Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims under California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bailey’s action because Bailey failed to allege facts sufficient to state a hostile work environment or retaliation claim under the FEHA. See Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211, 220 (2006) (elements of hostile work environment claim under FEHA); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123, 1130 (2005) (elements of a retaliation claim under FEHA); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(l) (an employer is liable under FEHA if it “knows or should have known” of the unlawful conduct and “fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bailey’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th Cir.2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a “district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”).

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