N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THERE SA SHER IDAN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ARB AR

A LAWALL, in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s Pim a C ounty Attorne y ; C OUNTY OF PIM A ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-17014 D.C . No. 4:16-c v-00588-C KJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2020 ** Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, GR

AB ER , a nd M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiff The re sa

She rida n, a form e r de puty

c o unty attorne y , a

ppe a ls from the s um m ary judgm e nt e nte re d in fa

vor of De fe n da

nts B a rba ra La W a l l a nd the 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2020 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 ora l a

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

of Pim a in this Title

VII a c tion. On de novo re vie w, M c Gine st v. GTE Se rv. C orp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th C ir. 2004), we a ffirm
. Pla intiff e sta

blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of se xdisc rim ination, but De fe nda nts gave le gitim a te , non-disc rim inatory re a sons for firing he r. Se e Villia rim o v. Aloha Isla nd Air, Inc ., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th C ir. 2002) (disc ussing shifting burde n of proof). The e ve nt tha

t pre c ipita te d the firing wa s a

n inc ide nt in whic h Pla intiff took unre da c t e d m e dic a l doc um e nts from a judge ’ s c ham

be rs, without perm ission, whic h ultim a te ly

re sulte d in dismissa l of a c rim ina l c a se on a c c ount of he r inte ntiona l prose c utoria l m isc onduc t. W he n firing Pla intiff, De fe n da

nts
e m pha siz e d he r " [d] ishone st a nd de c e itful c onduc t " in fa lse ly te lling thec ourt a

nd he r supe rvisors tha

t she h a d not looke d at the unre da c te d re c ords. In a ddition, Plaintiff ha d a long history

of pe rform anc e proble m s, a s to whic h De fe nda

nts showe d c onside ra

ble le nie n c y . For e xam

p le , Pla i ntiff’ s the nsupe rvisor sought her te rm ination during the probat iona

ry pe riod, but De fe n da

nts gave he r a

c ha n c e to im prove ; la te r Pla intiff wa s c ounse le d re ga rding una c c e pta

ble pe rform a nc e in a re a s inc luding trial skills a n d de m e anor in the c ourtroom , a nd she
re c e ive d a dditiona l tra ining; a nd in form a l e va luations shec onsiste ntly re c e ive d a
sc ore of " Doe s not a lwa

y s m e e t e xpe c tat ions" in the are a s of tria l pre pa ra tion, tria l
a dvoc a c y , qua lity

of work, a

nd profe ssiona lism
.

2Pla intiff’ s e vide nc e of pre te xt doe s not c re at e a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l

fa c t . A ne gative c om

m e nt in whic h De fe nda

nt LaW a ll re fe rre d to Pla i ntiff a s " this
wom an" e xpre sse d

e x a spe ration but did not displa y disc rim i natory inte nt. Se e C oghla n v. Am . Se a foods C o., 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th C i r. 2005) (noting tha t

" c le arly se xist" sta

te m e nts by the e m

ploy e r are dire c t e vide nc e of pre te xt). And the t wo m a le c o m

pa ra tors we re not simila

rly situa te d. Se e id. (noting tha

t
c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e of pre te xt m ust be " spe c ific and substa ntia l " to survivea
m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt). About a

de c a de be fore Pla intiff’ s te rm i nation, two m a le prose c utors c om m itte d inte ntiona l m isc o nduc t but we re not fire d. One ha d not be e n a c o n siste ntly poor pe rform e r be fore the m isc onduc t oc c urre d, a nd
ne ithe r ha d be e n dishone st with the ir supe rvisor; y e t those we re fa c tors on whic h De fe nda nts re lie d in te rm inating Pla intiff’ s e m ploy m e n t. AFFIRM E D.

3