Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juliet ARVAKHI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,  Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-56923
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 23, 2017
    Juliet Arvakhi, Pro Se
    Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Craig Clemmensen has been substituted for his predecessor, Julian Castro, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juliet Arvakhi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her Title VII action alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi’s hostile work environment claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi’s retaliation claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she suffered an adverse action as a result of engaging in protected activity. See Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 646 (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.