NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHEILA LYNN GIANELLI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. HOME DEPOT, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 16512
D.C. No. 2:13

- cv - 01969

- JAM

- CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017 **
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Sheila Lynn Gianelli appeals pro se from the d istrict court’ s summary judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Zetwick v. County of Yolo , 850 F.3d

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

JUL 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16512

4 36, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly grante d summary judgment on Gianelli ’s sex

discrimination claim s because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non

- discriminatory r easons for its

adverse actions w ere pretext ual

. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc. , 150 F.3d 12 17,

12 19

- 2 2 (9th Cir. 1998) ( providing framework for analyzing discrimination claim s
under Title VII and FEHA , setting forth elements of such claims, and noting that circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s hostile

work environment claim s because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alte r the conditions of her employment. See Zetwick , 850 F.3d at 442 (elements of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII ); Lyle v. Warner

Bros. Television Prods. , 1 32 P.3d 211, 220 ( Cal. 2006) (elements of a hostile work environment claim under FEHA); see also Ariz. ex rel. Horne v. Geo Grp., Inc. , 816 F.3d 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing examples of conduct that create a triable dispute at summary judgment for hostile work environment claim s )

. The district court properly grante d summary judgment on Gianelli ’s3 16

- 16512

retaliation claim s because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non

- re taliatory reasons for its adverse actions

w ere pretext

ual

. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc. , 274 F.3d 1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) ( providing framework for analyzing retaliation claim s under Title VII and FEHA and setting forth elements of such claims ).

The district court did not abuse i ts discretion by denying Gianelli’s motion

for reconsideration because Gianelli failed to est ablish grounds for such relief. See

S ch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) ( setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration ).

AFFIRMED
.