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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. AB ER C R OM B IE & FITC H STORES, INC ., De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-56553 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-08441-GW -VB K 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 Ge orge H. W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 7, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ, B ER

ZON, a n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ste pha n ie C ha rle s a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of de fe nda

nt Abe rc rom

bie & Fitc h Store s, Inc . , on he r c l a im s for pre gna nc y disc rim ination a

nd re ta l iation unde r the C a l ifornia Fa ir Em ploy m e nt a n d Housing 

# FIL ED MAR 23 2017 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.Ac t (“ FEHA” ), a nd for wrongful te rm inat ion in viola tion of publicpolic y . W e a ffirm
. 1. C ha

rle s ha s pre se nte d ne ithe r dire c t nor c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e suffic ie nt to ra ise a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to whe the r Abe rc rom bie & Fitc h a c te d with disc rim inatory

inte nt whe n it te rm inate d C h arle s a s pa

rt of a re duc tion-inworkforc e . The nota tion, on the

lists of Distric t M ana ge rs re c om m e nde d for te rm ination, indic ating tha t C ha rle s wa s on m ate rnity

le ave is not “ e vide nc e whic h, if be lie ve d, prove s the fa c t [of disc rim inatory an im us] without infere n c e or pre s um ption.” Godw in v . Hunt W e sson, Inc
. , 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th C i r. 1998) (a lte ra tion in origina

l) (quoting Dav is v . C

he v ron, U.S.A., Inc
. , 14 F.3d 1082, 1085 (5th C ir. 1994)). Abe rc rom bie & Fitc h re pre se ntative s e xpla ine d tha t the c om pa ny note d e m ploy e e m a te rnity le a

ve sta tus, a nd othe r prote c te d c ha

ra c te ristic s, to e nsure tha

t the re duc tion-in-workforc e did not a dve rse ly im pa c t a ny prote c te d c l a ss of e m ploy e e s a nd be c a use le ave sta

tus wa s re le va

nt to thede ta ils of a

ny se ve ranc e a gre e m e nt. Also, some m ana g e rs whose nam e s a ppe a re d on the possible te rm ination list a

nd we re m arke d “ M ,” for m ate rnity le ave , we re not te rm inate d, indic a ting tha

t the m a rking wa s not c onne c te d to the te rm ination de c ision.

22. C ha rle s ha s provide d insuffic i e nt c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e to ra ise a tria b le issue of fa c t a s to whe the r Abe rc rom b ie & Fitc h’ s proffe re d re a s ons for he r te rm ination a s pa

rt of the re duc tion in workforc e are pre te xt for unla w ful disc rim ination. Se e Mc

Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973); Guz v . Be c hte l N

at’l. Inc ., 24 C a l. 4th 317, 354–56 (2000). Abe rc rom bie & Fitc h m a inta ins tha

t it se le c te d C ha

rle s for te rm ination in the re duc tion-inworkforc e be c a

use of he r r e lativ e poor pe rform anc e and pote ntia l for growth a t the
c om pa ny am ong Distric t

M ana g e rs, a

nd be c a use the de nsity of Distric t M ana ge rs in the Los Ange le s re g ion re q uire d a re duc tion in the

num be r of suc h m ana ge rs. Assum ing C ha

rle s e sta blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim inat ion, she ha s not m e t he r burde n of de m onstra

ting pre te xt e ithe r by

showing “that

unla wful disc rim ination m ore like ly tha n not m otiva

te d” Abe rc rom

b ie & Fitc h, or “ that the
e m ploy e r’ s proffe re d e xpla

nation is unworthy

of c re de nc e be c a

u se it is interna lly inc o nsiste nt or othe rwise not be lie va ble .” Earl v . N

ie lse n Me dia Re

se arc h, Inc
. , 658 F.3d 1108, 1112–13 (9th C ir. 2011). 1

1 C ha rle s’ argum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt a

p plie d the wrong burde n

of proof la c ks m e rit. The distric t c ourt note d tha t Abe rc rom

bie & Fitc h ha d produc e d “ re lat ive ly

a b unda nt” e vide nc e re ga

rding its re a sons for noting C ha rle s’ m ate rnity sta tus, a n d did not im

prope rly we igh the e vide nc e provide d by the pa rtie s. 3The m a te rnity nota tion ne xt to C ha

rle s’ nam e is not c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e of disc rim ination. As discusse d a bove , Abe rc rom

b ie re pre se ntative s e xpla i ne d the nota tion’ s re le v anc e for hum a n re sourc e s purpose s . The a bse nc e of a

ny e vide nc e that Abe rc rom

b ie & Fitc h

use d sta tistic a l a na l y s e s to a sse ss the im

pa c t of the
re duc t ion-in-workforc e on e m ploy e e s on m ate rnity

le ave doe s not sugge st disc rim inatory

inte nt, a s C ha

rle s wa s the only

e m ploy e e on m ate rnity

le ave ultim a te ly te rm inate d. Ne xt, R e giona l M ana ge r Andre a Ahle rs’ s a

nd Hum an R e sourc e s re pre se ntative Sc ott Ste rlings’ s sta te m e nts to C ha

rle s tha t she wa s not te rm i nate d be c a use of poor pe rform anc e we re c onsiste nt with the fa c t tha t C h arle s wa s not am ong the five e m

ploy e e s who we re te rm inat e d stric tly for c a use . Ahle rs a

nd Ste rling did not the

m se lve s sugge st C ha

rle s for te rm inat ion or m ake the ultim ate re duc t ion-in-workforc e de c i sions. Although C ha rle s’ s poor pe rform anc e re lative to the othe r Distric t M ana ge rs wa s pa rt of the e xpla

nation for he r te rm ination provide d in this litiga

tion, Ahle rs’ s a

nd Ste rling’ s fa ilure to so inform C h arle s doe s not ra ise a

tria ble issue of fa c t a s to whe t he r the c om

p any ’ s pe rform anc e c rite ria
wa s pre te xtua l. “ [A] n infe re nc e of inte ntiona l disc rim ination c annot be drawn sole ly from e vide nc e , if a

ny , tha t the c om pa ny lie d a bout its re a sons. The pe rtine nt

4sta

tute s do not prohibit ly

i ng, the y prohibit discrim ination.” Guz , 24 C a l . 4th a t 360-61. Like wise , Abe rc rom

bie & Fitc h’ s te rm inat ion of Kriste n Ne tsc hke , C ha rle s’ s la st supe rvisor, doe s not ne g ate the fa c t tha t C h arle s’ s pe rform an c e re vie ws a nd othe r pe rsonne l m a te ria ls, a s C h arle s a c knowle dge d, re fle c te d C ha rle s’ s de c lining
and re lative poor pe rform anc e c om pa re d to othe r Distric t M ana ge rs in he r re gion. C ha rle s’ s othe r a

rgum e nts re g a

rding e vide nc e of pre te xt a re sim ila rly una v a iling. 2 For the se re a sons, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Abe rc rom

bie & Fitc h on C ha

rle s’ s FEHA pre gna

nc y disc rim i nation
c la im
. 3. C ha

rle s ’ s c la i m for wrongful te rm ination in viola tion of publicpolic y

is de rivative of he r FEHA pre gna nc y disc rim ination c la i m , so a lso fa ils. Se e Turne r v . Anhe use r-Busc h, Inc
. , 7 C a l. 4th 1238, 1256 (1994). 4. For the re a sons sta

te d a bove , a ssum i ng C ha

rle s e sta blishe d a prim a

fa c ie
c a se of re ta lia

tion, thee vide nc e pre se nte d a lso doe s not ra ise a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to whe the r Abe rc rom

bie & Fitc h’ s proffe re d re a sons for C ha rle s’ te rm ination

2 W e de c line to c onside r C ha rle s’ s a rgum e n t tha

t De re k Ka

ufm an wa s a sim ila rly situa te d e m ploy e e who wa s tre ate d m ore fav ora bly tha n C ha rle s. C ha rle s did not ra ise the issue be fore the distric t c ourt, so thefa c tua l re c ord a s to why he wa s re ta ine d wa s not de ve lope d. Se e Unite d State s v . Mi K y u ng By un , 539 F.3d 982, 987 (9th C ir. 2008). 5we re pre te xt for re ta lia tion in viola

tion of FEHA. Se e J

ordan v . C

lark , 847 F.2d 1368, 1376 (9th C ir. 1988) (providing tha t re ta l iation c l a im s unde r FEHA ba se d on
c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e are e xam ine d unde r the thre e sta ge Mc

Donne ll Douglas burde n shifting fra

m e work). AFFIRM E D.

6