N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DANIELLE RIC HARD, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR SON TAHOE R

EGIONAL HEALTHC A R E, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15568 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00423-M M DW GC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN a

nd M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s a n d M URPHY, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED MAR 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy III, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.Danie lle R ic ha rd a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt to he r form e r e m ploy e r, C arson Ta

hoe R e giona l He a lthc are (C arson Tahoe ), on he r c la im s for re ta lia tory disc h arge unde r the Fa ir La b or Sta nda rds Ac t (FLSA) and Ne va da

sta te la w. W e a ffirm . 1. The FLSA prohibits a

n e m ploy e r from

re t a lia ting a ga inst a

n e m ploy e e ba se d on the e m

ploy e e ’ s c om

pla int of FLSA viola

t ions. 29 U.S.C . § 215(a )(3). For an e m

ploy e e ’ s c om

pla int to be prote c te d, it “ m u st be suffic ie ntly

c le ar and de ta ile d for a

re a sona ble e m ploy e r to unde rsta

nd it . . . a s a

n a sse rtion of rights prote c te d by the sta t ute and a c a ll for the i r prote c tion.” K a ste n v . Saint-Gobain Pe rformanc e Plastic

s C orp. , 563 U.S. 1, 14 (2011). He re , R ic h ard c o nc e de s tha

t the FLSA did not re quire C arson Ta hoe to providehe r with bre aks. M ore ove r, the re is no e vide nc e tha

t R ic ha rd a sse rte d a

le ga l right to ta

ke bre aks, or tha

t she c om pla i ne d tha

t C arson Ta

hoe wa s not c o m

pe nsating he r for the bre ak tim e tha t she worke d. B e c a

use R ic ha rd did not a sse rt tha

t a ny rights prote c te d by

the FLSA we re be ing viola

te d, she did not e nga ge in prote c te d a c tivity unde r the FLSA, a

nd the d istric t c o urt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to C a

rson Ta h oe on R ic ha rd’ s FLSA c la im . Se e Lambe rt v . Ac k e r le y , 180 F.3d 997, 1007 (9th C ir. 1999) (e n ba

nc ) (“ [N] ot a ll a

m orphous e xpre ssions of disc onte nt re late d to wa ge s and hours c onstitute

c om pla ints file d within the

m e aning of § 215(a

)(3).” ); c f. 2Rose nfie ld v . GlobalTranz Ente r., Inc . , —

F.3d — , 2015 W L 8599403, a t *5 (9th C ir. De c . 14, 2015) (re v e rsing a grant of sum

m a ry judgm e nt for a

n e m ploy e r whe re a form e r e m

ploy e e c om

pla ine d a bout spe c ific FLSA viola tions on more tha

n 30 oc c a sions, be c a

use , vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa v ora ble to the form e r e m ploy e e , the e m

ploy e e ’ s “ supe riors a c tua lly unde rstood (or re a sona b ly should have unde rstood) tha

t [the e m ploy e e ] wa s a sse rting rights prote c te d by the FLSA and wa s c a lling for the ir prote c tion” ). 2. R ic ha rd c annot suc c e e d on he r Ne va da sta te la w c la im for tortious disc ha rge , for two re a sons. First, R ic ha rd m ust show tha

t re ta lia tion wa s the sole proxim ate c a

use of he r te rm ination. Allum v . Valle y Bank of N e v . , 970 P.2d 1062, 1066 (Ne v. 1998). He re , no re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t R i c ha rd wa s not te rm inate d at le a st in pa

rt due to he r disc i plina

ry viola tions, inc luding he r fa lse tim e re c ords. Se e Baile

y v . Sw . Gas C

o. , 275 F.3d 1181, 1187 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha

t a n e m ploy e e fa ile d to show tha

t re ta lia tion wa s the sole proxim ate c a use of he r te rm inat ion whe re the e vide n c e showe d she wa s te rm inate d for fa iling to c o ope rate with a

le gitim ate m e dic a l inve s tiga tion). Se c ond, Ric ha

rd m ust show that he r te rm ination viola

te d a c om pe lling public

polic y . W

ay me n t v . Holme

s , 912 P.2d 816, 818 (Ne v. 1996). He re , R ic ha rd subm itte d insuffic i e nt e v ide nc e to show that C arson Ta

hoe ’ s bre ak polic y

wa s e ithe r ille ga l or da

nge rous to nurse s or 3patie nts, so sheha s not e sta b lishe d tha

t he r te rm ination viola

t e d a c om pe lling public polic y . Se eBaile

y , 275 F.3d a

t 1187 (holding tha

t an e m ploy e e ’ s a sse rtion that fa t igue from

ove rtim e m a de e m

ploy e e s da

n ge rous drive rs did not e s ta blish a c om pe lling public

polic y ). AFFIRM E D .

4