NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 district 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16512 

436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s sex 

discrimination claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material 

fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its 

adverse actions were pretextual. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 

1219-22 (9th Cir. 1998) (providing framework for analyzing discrimination claims

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 claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or 

pervasive to alter 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., 132 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 claims).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s 
3 16-16512 

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

as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions 

were pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 

1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing framework for analyzing retaliation claims

under Title VII and FEHA and setting forth elements of such claims).

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

for reconsideration because Gianelli failed to establish grounds for such relief. See 

Sch. 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.