N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT R UTH M ILANO, No. 13-56082

Pla intiff - Appe lla

nt, D.C . No. 09-c v-2469-L(B LM ) v. ASHTON C A R T ER * , in his offic ia l M EM OR A NDUM ** c a pa c ity a s Se c re ta

ry , Unite d State s De pa rtm e nt of De fe nse , Age nc y De fe nda nt - Appe lle e . Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , M . Ja m e s Lore nz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 9, 2015 *** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVERM AN a n d B E A, C irc uit Judge s, a nd QUIST, Se nior Distric t Judge . **** 

# F IL ED APR 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* Ashton Carter is substituted for his predecessor, Chuck Hag el, as Secretary of the Department of Defense, pursuant to F ed. R. App. P. 43(c).

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent ex c ept as provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See F ed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**** T he Honorable Gordon J . Quist, Senior District J udg e for the United States Court for the W estern District of Michig an, sitting by desig nation.Pla intiff, R uth M ila no, a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt for the de fe nda nt on c la im s of hostile

e nvironm e nt se xua l ha

ra ssm e nt and re ta lia

t ion unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e e t se q. M ila

n o a lso a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing he r m otion for re c o nside ration unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 59(e ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd a ffirm . 1. W e re vie w de novo a grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt. Fair Hous. C ounc il of Rive rside

C nty ., Inc . v . Riv e rside

Tw o , 249 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th C ir. 2001). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on M ila

no’ s hostile work e nvironm e nt c la i m . To e sta blish he r c la im , M ila

no wa s re quire d to show tha t

“ the ha ra ssm e nt wa s suffic ie ntly se ve re or pe rva sive to a lte r the c onditions of [her] e m ploy m e nt a nd c re ate an a

busive work e nvironm e nt.” Daw son v . Ente k

Int’l , 630 F.3d 928, 938 (9th C ir. 2011). Thesingleinc ide nt of se xua l ha ra ssm e nt on whic h M ila no ba se s he r c la im

wa s offe nsive , but wa s not suffic ie ntly se ve re to a lte r the te rm s a nd c onditions of he

r e m ploy m e nt. Se eBrook

s v . C ity of San Mate o , 229 F.3d 917, 926 (9th C ir. 2000) (noting tha t a single inc ide nt of se xua l ha ra ssm e nt m ust be “ e xtre m e ly se ve re ” to support a hostilework e nvironm e nt c la im ). In a ddition, be c a

use the ha ra sse r wa s not a

supe rvisor who ha d a

uthority to ta ke ta ngible e m ploy m e nt a c t ions a ga inst M ila no, his single

a c t c ould not ha

ve a lte re d M ila no’ s working c onditions. Vanc ev . Ball State Univ . , 133 S. C t. 2434, 2439 2(2013). Fina l ly , the de fe nda nt took prom

pt a nd e ffe c tive re m e dia l a c tion tha t e lim inat e d a

ny possibility

of future ha

ra ssm e nt by

se pa rating theha

ra s se r from M ila no’ s work e nvironm e nt a

nd issuing him

a le tte r of c onc e rn. Ellison v . Brady , 924 F.2d 872, 882 (9th C ir. 1991). Thede fe nda nt’ s W e stfa ll Ac t c e rtific at ion, 28 U.S.C . § 2679(d), wa s not re le v ant to thefore going issue s. 2. The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on M ila no’ s re ta lia

t ion c la im . M ila

no’ s supe rvisor’ s re s ponse to M ila no’ s re que st for a footstool wa s not a

n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion be c a

use the supe rvisor gra

nte d M ila no’ s re que st a

nd the situa

tion wa s re solve d whe n M ila n o found a

suita ble c ha ir. Se eVasque

z v . C nty . of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 646 (9th C i r. 2004) (de fining a dve rse e m

p l oym e nt a c tion). In a ddition, M i la no fa ile d to pre se nt a

ny e vide nc e showing tha

t the de fe nda

nt’ s le gitim ate non-re t a lia t ory re a sons for transfe rring M ila

no to thec a shie r position a n d issuing her a

write -up for ta lking to a ba g ge r in viola

tion of polic y

we re m e re pre te xts for re t a lia tion. Daw

son , 630 F.3d at 936. 3. W e re vie w the de nia l of a m otion for re c onside ration for a buse of disc re tion. Int’l Re h a bilitativeSc is. Inc . v . Se be lius , 688 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th C ir. 2012). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M ila no’ s m otion for re c onside ration be c a

use M ila no did not pre se nt ne wly

disc ove re d e vide nc e , show tha t the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d c le a

r e rror, or ide ntify

an inte rve ning c ha

nge 3in c o ntrolling la w . Sc h. Dist. N

o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty . v . AC andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th C ir. 1993). Inste a d, M ila no sim p ly re h a s he d he r pre v iously re je c te d a rgum e nts. Ex

x on Shipping C

o. v . Bak e r , 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (“ [A R ule 59(e ) m otion] ‘ m a

y not be use d to re litiga

te old m atte rs, or to ra ise argum e nts or pre se nt e vide nc e that c ould ha ve be e n ra ise d prior to thee ntry of judgm e nt.’ ” ) (quoting 11 C . Wright & A M ille r, Fe de ra l Pra c t ic e and Proc e dure § 2810.1, pp. 127–28 (2d e d. 1995)). AFFIRM E D .

4