N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT IDALIE M UNOZ M UNOZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. GAR Y F. LOC KE, Se c re ta

ry Unite d State s De pa rtm e nt of C o m

m e rc e ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35915 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01475-JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Ida lie M unozM unoza

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt a

nd dismissa l o f va

rious fe de ra l and sta

t e la w c la im s in he r e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w 

# FIL ED DEC 15 2015 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de novo. Brantle y v . N BC Univ e rsal, Inc
. , 675 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th C ir. 2012) (dism i ssa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im); Daw

son v . Entek

Int’l , 630 F.3d 928, 934 (9th C ir. 2011) (sum

m ary judgm e nt); La Re union Franc aise SA v . Barne

s , 247 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th C ir. 2001) (dismissa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d

by the re c ord. Gordon v . Virtumundo, Inc . , 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d M unozM unoz ’ s Fam ily M e dic a l Le ave Ac t (“ FM LA” ) c la im be c a use M unozM unozne ve r provide d de fe nda nt notic e of he r inte nt to ta

ke FM L A le a

ve . S e e Sande rs v . C

i ty of N e w port , 657 F.3d 772, 778 (9th C ir. 2011) (to sta te an FM LA c la im , the pla intiff m ust show tha

t she provide d “ suffic ie nt notic e of [he r] inte nt to ta ke le ave ,” am ong othe r e le m e nts). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d M unozM unoz ’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t, wrongful te rm inat ion, a

nd due proc e ss c la im s for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion be c a use the C ivil Se rvic e R e form Ac t (“ C SR

A” ) provide s the e xc lusive a dm inistra

tive re m e die s for the s e c la im s. S e eElgin v . De

p’t of Tre asury , 132 S. C t. 2126, 2132, (2012) (c onc luding tha t the C SR A pre c lude d fe de ra l jurisdic tion ove r c onstitutiona

l c la i m s for e quita

ble re lie f); Mangano v . Unite d State s , 529 F.3d 1243, 1246–47 (9th C ir. 2007) (e xpla ining tha t the C SR A provide s a

re m e dia l fram e work for fe de ra l e m ploy e e s to c ha lle nge “prohibite d pe rsonne l pra c tic e s,”
1 3 - 3 5 9 1 5 2inc l uding te rm ination; “ [i] f the c ha lle nge d c onduc t ‘ fa lls within the sc ope of the C SR A’ s “prohibite d pe rsonne l pra c tic e s,” the n the C SR A’ s a dm inistra

t ive proc e d ure s a re [the e m

ploy e e ’ s] only re m e dy ’ ” ); Saul v . Unite d State s , 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th C ir. 1991) (c onc l uding tha t the C SR Apre e m pte d c om m on la w tort c la im s). Dism issa l of M unozM unoz ’ s fa ilure -to-a c c o m m o date c la im

unde r the R e ha bilita tion Ac t of 1973 (“ R

A” ) wa s prope r be c a

use M unozM unoz fa ile d

to show tha t she tim e ly e x h a

uste d he r a dm inistra

tive re m e die s unde r the R A prior to filing he r c om

pla int in the

insta nt a c tion. S

e e 29 C .F.R . § 1614.105(a )(1) (a fe de ra l e m ploy e e a lle ging disa

bility disc rim i nation m

ust c onsult with a

n EEO c ounse lor within 45 da

y s of the disc rim inatory a c t or pe rsonne l a c tion prior to filing a c om pla i nt); C he rosk y v . He nde rson , 330 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th C ir. 2003) (e xpla ining tha

t “ a fe d e ra l e m

ploy e e m ust e xha ust a va ila ble a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s” in orde r to bring a c la im unde r the R

A). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on MunozM unoz ’ s disc rim ination a

nd re ta l iation c l a im s unde r the R A be c a use M unozM unozfa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m at e ria l fa c t a s to whe t he r de fe n da

nts’ proffe re d le gitim ate re a son for he r te rm ination wa s pre te x tua l. S e e C oons v . Se c ’y

of U.S. De p’t of Tre asury , 383 F.3d 879, 887–88 (9th C ir. 2004) (se tting forth e l e m e nts of
1 3 - 3 5 9 1 5 3a

prim a fa c ie c a se for re ta l iation under the R A a nd e xpla ining burden-shifting fram e work whic h re quire s a pla intiff to reb ut a s pre t e xtua l a de fe nda nt’ s proffe re d le gitim ate re a son for the a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion to a

void sum m a ry judgm e nt); W alton v
. U.S. Marshals Se rv . , 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th C i r. 2007) (se tting forth e le m e nts of prim a fa c ie c a se for disa b ility disc rim ination under the R A). W e re je c t M unoz M unoz ’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t c ourt e nga ge d in va rious a c ts of a lle ge d m isc o nduc t during he r c a s e , wa s bia se d a ga inst he r, and im prope rly de nie d he r m otion for judgme nt. M unozM unoz ’ s re que st to re fe r the a lle g e d e vide nc e ta m pe ring a c ts for c rim ina l inve stiga

tion a n d prose c ution, se t forth in her Ope ning B rie f, is de n ie d. W e do not c onside r issue s or a rgum e nts not spe c i fic a lly and distinc t ly

ra ise d and a rgue d in theope ning brie f, or ra ise d for the first tim e in there ply brie f . Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 9 1 5 4