NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISA WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
LOWE ’ S HIW, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15608
D.C. No. 3:14

- cv - 02984

- CRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017 **
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Lisa Washington appea ls pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action under Title VII, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) , and California state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Zet wick v. County of Yolo , 850 F.3d 436,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not preceden t except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15608

440 (9th Cir. 2017)

. We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Washington’ s sex
discrimination claim because Washington failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether her in eligibility for a raise and termination were pretextual. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc. , 150 F.3d 1217, 12 19

- 20 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the burden

- shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applies to sex discrim ination claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act ( “FEHA” ) and Title VII , and setting forth elements of the claims ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Washington’s
hostile work environment claim s because Washington failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Washington’s employment. Ariz. ex rel. Horne
v. Geo Gr p

. , Inc. , 816 F.3d 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kortan v. Cal.
Youth Auth. , 217 F.3d 1104, 1109

- 10 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Zetwick , 850 F.3d at 442 n.1 ( elements of a hostile work environment claim under FEHA and Title VII ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wash ington’s equal pay claim under 29 U.S.C. § 206 and California Labor Code § 1197.5 because Washington failed to raise a t riable dispute as to whether she was receiving different wages than employees of the opposite sex for substantially3 16

- 15608

equal work. See Sta nley v. Univ. of S. Cal. , 178 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 1999) (elements of prima facie case under 29 U.S.C. § 206 ) ; Green v. Par Pools Inc. , 111 Cal. App. 4th 620, 623

- 24 (2003) (elements of prima facie case under Cal. Lab. Code § 1197.5 )

. The district co urt properly granted summary judgment on Washington’s retaliation claim because Washington failed to establish a prima facie case of
retaliation. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc. , 274 F.3d 1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) ( explaining that reta liation analysis under Title VII and FEHA
uses the McDonnell Douglas burden

- shifting framework and setting forth elements
of these claims ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Washington’s RICO claim because Washington did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendant undertook a “racketeering activity.” Grimmett v. Brown , 75 F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (elements of civil RICO claim). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Washington’s request for app ointment of counsel, set forth in the opening and reply brief

s , is denied.
AFFIRMED.