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

C AR LA VAN PELT, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,

v. STATE OF NEVADA, EX R E L. NEVADA DEPAR TM ENT OF C OR R EC TIONS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15906 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00061-HDM

VPC

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da H owa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, W . FLETC HER , a nd M UR G UIA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED

F EB 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).Pla intiff C a rla Va n Pe lt (“ V an Pe lt” ) a ppe a ls the sum

m a ry judgm e nt gra nt to de fe nda n t State of Ne va da e

x re l. De pa

rtm e nt of C orre c tions (“ NDOC ” ) on he r Title VII c la im of dispa ra te tre a tm e nt ge nde r disc rim ina tion. W e a ffirm

. A pla intiff a l le ging d ispa ra te tre a t m e nt unde r T i tle VII m

ust first esta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of d isc rim ination. Te x . De p’t of C mty . Affairs v . Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 ( 1 9 8 1)

. A prim a fa c ie c a se is e sta blishe d for pla intiffs who c a n “ show that : (1) the y be l onge d to a prote c te d c la s s; (2) the y

we re qua lifie d for the ir jobs; (3) the y we re subje c t e d to a n a dve rse e m p loy m e nt a c tion; and (4) sim ila rly situa te d

e m ploy e e s not in the ir prote c te d c la ss re c e ive d m ore fa vora ble tre a t m e nt.” Moran v . Se lig , 447 F.3d 748, 753 (9th C ir. 2006). Va n Pe l t wa s te rm ina te d for ch r o n i cally b ei n g la te to work a nd/or le a ving e a rly , a n d the n fa lsify ing logbooks a n d t im e she e ts to show she ha d worke d longe r hours tha n she a c tua lly

did. The distric t c ourt prope rly found tha t V a n Pe lt fa ile d to c a rry he r burde n a t the fourth prong be c a

use she fa ile d to ide ntify a n y m a le e m

ploy e e s w h o c om

m itte d sim ila r transgre ssions but we re not fire d. Se e Vasque z v . C ounty o f Los Ange le

s, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th C i r. 2003) (no infe re nc e of disc r i m i n at i o n whe re e m p loy e e s not sim ila rly situa te d a nd the ty

pe a nd se ve rity of a lle ge d offe n se dissim ila r); se e also Haw n v . Ex e c . J

e t Mgmt. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1156-58 (9th C ir. 2010).

2Va n Pe l t wa i ve r he r a rgum e nt tha t s he e sta blishe d dispa

ra te tre a tm e nt with dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim inat ion, be c a u s e she f aile d to pre se n t t

ha t a rgum e nt to the distric t c ourt. Se e W

alsh v . N e v . De p’t of Human R e

s. , 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ Issue s not pre se nte d to a distric t c ourt ge ne ra lly c a nnot be he a rd on a ppe a l.” ). Although Va n Pe lt survive d sum m a ry judgm e nt on he r Title V II re ta lia tion c la im , she stipula te d to dism iss this c la im with pre judic e p rior to tria l, a long w ith “ a n y o the r First Am e ndm e nt c la im t

ha t c a n b e re a d a s a sse rte d” in he r c om pla int, a nd “ a ny c la im of hostile work e nvironm e nt/se xua l h ar as sm e nt.” Ac c ordingly , no othe r c la im s

m e ntione d in he r ope ning brie f a re prope rly be fore us. AFFIRM E D.

3