N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ENDY C ENIS,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W INC O HOLDINGS, INC ., a c orporation, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 18-16089 D.C . No. 1:17-c v-00863-DAD-JLT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Da le A. Droz d, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 3, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd W . FLETC HER

and M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s . W e ndy C e n is (“ C e nis” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of W inc o Holdings, Inc
. (“ W inC o” ) an d its de nia l of he r m otion for pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt on he r c la i m s tha t she wa s disc rim i nate d a ga inst in



# F IL ED DEC 16 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).viola

tion of theC a lifornia

Fa ir Em ploy m e nt and Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ), an d tha t she wa s re ta l iate d a g a inst in viola tion of C a lifornia

La bor C ode § 6310, a long with
a num be r of subsidia

ry c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd
we a ffirm
. FEHA prohibits a

n e m ploy e r from

te rm inating a pe rson’ s e m ploy m e nt be c a use of a phy sic a l disa

bility unle ss the e m

ploy e e is una

ble to pe rform

his or he r dutie s e ve n with re a sona

b le a c c om

m odations. C A L . G O V ’ T C O D E § 12940(a), (a )(2). Thus, thethre shold que stion he re is whe the r C e nis suffe re d from a disa bility
. FEHA de fine s phy sic a l disa bility to inc lude c onditions a ffe c ting the dige stive sy ste m that limit a m a jor life a c t ivity . C A L . G O V ’ T C O D E § 12926(m)(1)(A). W orking is a m a jor life a c t ivity , a

n d a c o ndition lim

its a m a jor life a c tivity

if it m ake s the a c hie ve m e nt of the m a jor life a c tivity

diffic ult. Id. at § 12926(m)(1)(B )(ii)–(iii). B ut a re gula tion interpre t ing FEHA qua lifie s tha t disa bility doe s not inc lude “ c o nditions tha t a re m ild, whic h do not lim it a m a jor life
a c tivity , a s de te rm ine d on a c a se -by -c a se ba sis,” inc luding “m inor a nd non-c hronic ga strointe stina l disorde rs.” Se e 2 C A L . C O D E RE G S . tit. 2, § 11065(d)(9)(B ) (2019); se ealso C

olme nare s v . Brae mar C

ountry C lub, Inc
. , 63 P.3d 220, 226

2(C a l. 2003) (noting tha t C a lifornia c ourts give“ substa ntia l we ight” to re gula

tions
c onstruing FEHA issue d by the a ge n c y

re s ponsiblefor a dm iniste ring the sta tute ). Se c tion 11065(d)(9)(B ) of C a lifornia ’ s re gula tions e xc lude C e nis’ s food poisoning from

the FEHA de finition of disa bility . C e nis c la im s tha

t she suffe re d from vom iting a

n d dia rrhe a a fte r e ating c hic ke n sa la d from the de l i of the W inC o groc e ry store whe re she worke d
. He r sym ptom s subside d two da

y s la t e r, at whic h point shere turne d to work. This is e xa c tly the ty pe of “ m ild,” “ m inor a

nd nonc hronic ga strointe stina l disorde r[] ” tha t is e xc l ude d from the de finition of a disa bility unde r the re gula

tion. B e c a

use C e nis’ s illne ss wa s not a disa b ility , she
c annot m ake a

prim a fa c ie showing of discrim ination in viola tion of FEHA. C e nis a lso ha s not shown a tria ble issue a s to he r c la im

tha t she wa s fire d in
re ta lia tion for re porting the a lle ge dly spoile d c hic ke n sa la d, in viola

tion of C a lifornia La bor C ode § 6310. Se c tion 6310 prohibits a n e m ploy e e from

be ing fire d or disc rim inate d a ga inst for m aking workpla c e -re l ate d he a lth a nd sa fe ty c om pla i nts. Se e also C A L . L A B O R C O D E § 6310(b) (providing tha t a n e m ploy e e who ha s be e n fire d or disc rim inate d a ga inst be c a use he or she ha s c om

p la ine d
a bout “unsa fe working c onditions, or work pra c tic e s, in his or her e m

ploy m e nt or pla c e of e m

ploy m e nt,” is e ntitle d to re insta te m e nt a nd ba c k pa y ). To suc c e e d on he r c la im , C e nis m

ust first show tha

t she e nga ge d in a

prote c te d a c tivity
. S

e e 3Die

go v . Pilgrim Unite

d C hurc h of C

hrist , 180 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 359, 373 (C a l. C t. App. 2014). C e nis fa i ls a t this ste p. He r c om

pla ints a bout thea lle ge dly

spoile d
c hic ke n sa l a d to W i nC o a ge nts did not c onstitute prote c te d a c tivity . The
c om pla i nts did not c o nc e rn workpla c e sa fe ty , a s the re c ord shows no e vide nc e tha t W inC o e m

p loy e e s we re e xpe c t e d or re q uire d to e at W inC o food. Inste a d , he r c om pla i nts a bout thec hic ke n sa la d a

re prope rly

c onstrue d a s one s a

bout a public
he a lth risk, but such c om

pla ints “ do[] not sa

t isfy § 6310’ s re quire m e nt tha t the
e m ploy e e c om

pla in of unsa fe working c onditions or a n unsa fe workpla c e .” Se e C re ighton v . C

ity of Liv ingston , 2009 WL 3246825, a t *14 (E.D. C a l . Oc t . 7, 2009) (c iting Lujan v . Minagar , 21 C a l. R ptr. 3d 861, 864 (C a l. C t. App. 2004)). B e c a use C e nis fa ile d to show she suffe re d from

a disa bility , or tha

t W inC o re ta lia te d a g a inst he r, he r c la im s de pe nde nt on those issue s a l so fa il. AFFIRM E D.

4