N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KATHLEEN M ULLIGAN, a n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. VIC TOR IA A. LIPNIC , Ac ting C ha ir of the Unite d State s Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity C om

m ission, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-56770 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00712-DDP-AJW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DR AIN, * * Distric t Judge . Pla intiff Ka

thle e n M ulliga

n a ppe a l s the Distric t C ourt’ s gra n t of sum m ary judgm e nt to theDe fe nda

nt Vic toria

A. Lipnic , Ac ting C ha i r of the Unite d State s



# F IL ED APR 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble Ge rshwin A. Dra in, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of M ic higa n , sitting by

de signa t ion.Equa l Em

ploy m e nt Opportunity

C om m ission (“ EEOC ” ), on M ulliga n’ s fa ilure to a c c om m odate , re ta lia

tion, a nd hostile work e nvironm e n t c l a im s. Se e 42 U.S.C . §§ 12203(a), 12112(a ), (b)(5)(A), 2000e -2(a )(1), 2000e -3(a ); 29 U.S.C . § 794a (2). W e a ffirm . M ulliga n first c onte nds tha

t the EEOC should bee stoppe d from m any of its argum e nts, be c a

use the EEOC ’ s a dm inistra tive de c isions, m anua l , a

nd guida nc e c ontra dic t its positions he re . The EEOC c onte n ds tha t the re is no inc onsiste nc y and tha t M ulliga n c annot e sta

blish e stoppe l in a

ny e ve nt. Eve n

a ssum i ng the EEOC ’ s positions in its 2005 m anua l a nd 2002 guida

nc e m at e ria lly

diffe r from

its position in this c a s e , the gove rnm e nt would beba rre d by e stoppe l only

if the re we re a ffirm ative m isc onduc t. This re quire s a showing of “ a ffirm ative m isre pre se ntation or a ffirm ative c onc e a lm e nt of a m ate ria l fa c t by

the gove rnm e nt.” W

atk ins v . U.S. Army , 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th C ir. 1989) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion omitte d). Inc onsiste nc y is not suffic ie nt, a

nd the re fore the EEOC is not e stoppe d. M ulliga n ne xt a rgue s tha t he r fa ilure to a c c om

m odate and re ta lia

tion c la im s we re tim e ly

e ve n though file d m ore tha n 45 da y s a fte r the c la im e d a dve rse a c tion. R e ta lia t ion a nd fa i lure to a c c o m

m odate c la im s a

re disc re te c la im s tha

t m ust be tim e ly file d. Se e N

at’l R.R. Passenge r C

orp. v . Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 113–14 2(2002) (re ta lia tion); C he rosk y v . He n de rson , 330 F.3d 1243, 1246–47 (9th C ir. 2003) (fa ilure to a c c om

m odate ). M ulliga

n wa s re quire d to c onsult a n Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity

(“ EEO” ) C o unse lor “ within 45 da y s of the date of the m atte r a lle ge d to be disc rim inatory .” 29 C .F.R . § 1614.105(a )(1); s e e also Vasque

z v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 644 (9th C ir. 2003). She c onte nds he r de la y m a y be e xc u se d be c a

use she le arne d la

te r that re ta lia tory anim us a dve rse ly a ffe c te d he r e arlie r a c c om m odation re que sts. Ne ve rthe le ss, she wa s re quire d to bring he r c l a im s within 45 da y s of the a lle g e d a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion, not 45 da y s from whe n she be c am e aware tha t the a c t ion wa s ba se d

on re ta lia tory inte nt. Se e Luk ov sk y v . C ity and C ounty of San Franc isc o , 535 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008). The Distric t C ourt did not err in sua sponte granting sum

m ary judgm e nt on M ulliga n ’ s fa ilure to a c c om

m odate c la im s tha

t we re tim e ly , be c a

use the re c ord wa s suffic i e ntly

de v e lope d, the re wa s no ge nuine dispute of fa c t, a nd she ha d re a s ona ble notic e tha

t the suffic ie nc y

of he r c l a im s would beat issue . Se e Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1176 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba n c ). M ulliga n a rgue s tha t she ha s e sta

blishe d a prim a fa c ie fa ilure to a c c om m odate c la i m , but she ha s not shown tha t the EEOC inte ntiona lly disc rim inate d a ga inst he r. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 1981a (a ); Duv all v . C ounty of K itsap , 3260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th C ir. 2001) (c i tation omitte d). She a c knowle dge s tha t som e of he r a c c om

m o dation re que sts we re e ve ntua lly fulfille d, a

nd the re is no indic ation tha

t the de la y s we re the re sult of a

nything othe r tha

n ne glige nc e . As for the E EOC ’ s fa ilure to providepe rm a ne nt sta ff to e sc ort pa

rtic i pa nts to Mulliga

n’ s he arings, M ulliga

n’ s re que st wa s spe c ulat ive a s she ha d not a s se rte d tha t she c ould no longe r pe rform

tha t duty . As for he r re q

ue st for a ssista

nc e with ta

king note s during he arings, M ulliga

n ha d a c c e ss to tra

nsc ripts from

the he a rings, a nd she ne ve r e xpla ine d wha

t a c c om m o dation theEEOC should ha ve provide d he r. Se e Barne tt v . U.S. Air, Inc . , 228 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba n c ) (“ An a ppropria te re a sona ble a c c om

m odation m

ust be e ffe c tive , in e na

bling thee m

ploy e e to pe rform

the dutie s of the position.” ), v ac ate d on othe r grounds , 535 U.S. 391 (2002). Ne xt, M ulliga

n c la im s tha

t she ha s e sta

blishe d a prim a fa c ie c la im

of re ta lia tion. Mulliga

n m ust show a

c a usa l link be twe e n he r e m

ploy e r’ s a c t ion a

nd he r prote c te d a c tivity , but she ha s not a lle ge d tha t the e m ploy e e s re s ponsiblefor fulfilling her a c c om

m odation re que sts ha d a

ny re ta l iatory

m otive . Se e Ray

v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th C ir. 2000). Mulliga n ’ s re ta lia tion c la im s ba se d on he r a lle gat ions of he r supe rvisor’ s profa ne re m a rk a nd bre a c h of he r m e dic a l priva c y are not a c tiona ble be c a u se the y are ba s e d on only

a lim ite d 4num

be r of hostilere m arks. Se e Hardage v . C BS Broad., Inc . , 427 F.3d 1177, 1189 (9th C ir. 2005) (c olle c ting c a se s), ame nde d on othe r grounds , 433 F.3d 672 (9th C ir. 2006). Furthe r, the re c ord doe s not sugge st tha t the supe rvisor re v e a le d M ulliga n ’ s m e d i c a l inform ation. And a s for M ulliga n’ s re ta lia tion c la im ba se d on the E EOC ’ s de la

y in re c la ssify ing he r position, she a d m itte dly did not e xha

ust he r a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. Se e K

aramanos v . Egge r , 882 F.2d 447, 449–51 (9th C ir. 1989) (a ffirm ing dismissa l of pla intiff’ s c la im s se e king re vie w of a ge nc y ’ s

“ re c la ssific ation de c ision on the ground tha

t he fa ile d to e xha

ust his a d m inistra tive re m e die s” ). M ulliga n ne xt a s se rts tha

t we should for thefirst tim e re c ogniz e a pe r se the o ry for re ta lia

tion c la im s. W e de c line to do so. Suc h a the ory would run c ounte r to the princ i ple tha t the “ antire ta lia

tion provision prote c ts a

n individual not from a ll re ta l i ation, but from

re ta lia t ion tha t ” is m ate ria l ly

a dve rse to a

re a s ona ble e m ploy e e . Se e Burlington N . & Santa Fe

Ry . C o. v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53, 67–68 (2006). Fina lly , M ulliga

n a s se rts hostile

work e nvironm e nt c la im s unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t

of 1964 a

nd the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t of 1990 (“ ADA” ), a s a

m e nde d by

the ADA Am e ndm e nts Ac t of 2008. For purpose s of this a ppe a l, we a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t a c l a im unde r the ADA m ay

e xist, but 5M ulliga

n ha s not shown tha

t she wa s disc rim inate d a ga i nst on theba sis of he r m e m b e rship in a

prote c te d c la ss unde r e ithe r sta tute . Se e 42 U.S.C . § 12112(a) (prohibiting discrim ination “ on the ba sis of disa bility ” ); 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -2(a )(1) (prohibiting discrim ination ba se d on “ ra c e , c olor, re l igion, se x, or na tiona l origin” ). Disc rim i nation on the

ba sis of prior EEO a c tivity would c onstitute

a c la im for re ta lia tion, not hostile

work e nvironm e n t. S

e e 42 U.S.C . §§ 12203(a), 2000e -3(a ). M ore o ve r, she c annot e sta blish a pe rva s ive or se v e re atm osphe re suffic ie nt to c onstitute an a c tiona

ble h o stile work e nvironm e n t c l a im . Se e Me r itor Sav . Bank , FSB v . Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986) (“For . . . ha ra ssm e nt to be a c tiona

ble , it m ust be suffic ie ntly

se ve re or pe rva sive to a lte r the c onditions of the vic t im ’ s e m ploy m e nt a nd c re ate an a

busive working e nvironm e nt.” ) (c ita tion, a lte rations, and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). AFFIRM E D .

6