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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC
. , a fore ign c orporation; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; JANE DOE 3; JANE DOE 4; JANE DOE 5; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35468 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00919-JC C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July 11, 2018 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, C LIFTON, a

n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. This C ourt re vie ws a

distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e n t de novo. 

# FIL ED JUL 18 2018 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.

* * 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).A.G. v . Paradise Valle y Unifie d Sc h. Dist. N

o. 69 , 815 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th C ir. 2016). Sum

m ary judgm e nt is a ffirm e d if a n d only if the re is no ge nuine issue of
m ate ria l fa c t, e ve n whe n the e vide nc e is vie we d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the
nonm o ving pa

rty . Id. Fa ll a lle ge s viola

tions of both the

W a shington La

w Aga inst Disc rim ination (W L AD) and TitleVII. “ [D] isc re te disc rim inatory a c t s a re not a c tiona

ble if tim e ba rre d, e ve n whe n the y

are re late d to a c ts a lle ge d in tim e ly file d c h arge s.” N

at’l R.R. Passe nge r C

orp. v . Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002); se e also RK Ve nture s, Inc
. v . C ity of Se attle , 307 F.3d 1045, 1061 (9th C i r. 2002). Ac ts tha t oc c urre d outside the lim ita

tions pe riod c annot e v ide nc e disc rim ination unle ss the y are pa rt of a hostilework e nvironm e n t, whic h “ is a m bie nt a nd pe rsiste nt, a

nd . . . c ontinue s to e x ist be twe e n ove rt m anife sta tions.” Ze tw i c k

v . C ty . of Yolo , 850 F.3d 436, 444–45 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting Drape r v . C oe ur Roc he

ste r, Inc
. , 147 F.3d 1104, 1108 n.1 (9th C ir. 1998)); se e also RK Ve nture s, Inc
. , 307 F.3d a

t 1061 n.13. This fra m e work is thesa

m e for c la im s unde r both TitleVII an d W LAD. Antonius v
. K ing C ty . , 153 W a sh. 2d 256, 270 (2004). The inc ide nts Fa ll c o m

pla ins of we re not suffic ie nt in sim ila rity or fre que nc y to ra ise a m ate ria l que stion of fa c t a s to the e xiste nc e of a hostilework
e nvironm e nt. Se e Porte r v . C alifornia De

p’t of C orr. , 419 F.3d 885, 893 (9th C ir.
22005). As suc h, the only inc ide nts tha

t c an spe ak to Fa ll’ s disc rim ination c la im are those inc i de nts not time ba rre d. W a shington’ s ge ne ra l thre e -y e a r statute of lim ita

tions for pe rsona l injury
a c tions a p plie s to W L AD c l a im s. Antonius , 153 W a sh. 2d a t 261-62 (2004); se e R C W 4 .16.080(2). Inc ide nts tha t oc c urre d be fore Fe brua

ry 2012 a re tim e ba rre d unde r W LAD. The only

inc i d e nts not so tim

e ba rre d are the M arc h

2012
c onfronta tion with Elisa

b e th B lake , the June 2013 c onfronta tion with Tra c y M orrison, a

nd the Oc tobe r 2013 ha

ra s sm e nt by

Jua n Za ba la and subse que nt te rm ination. Unde r W LAD, to e sta blish a prim a

fa c ie c a se of dispa

rate tre at m e nt,
an e m ploy e e m ust show, inte r alia , tha

t he wa s tre ate d le s s favora bly tha n a sim ila rly situa te d , nonprote c te d e m

ploy e e . W ashington v . Boe ing C

o . , 105 W a sh. App. 1, 13 (2000). All but two of Fall’ s c la i m s a re tim e ba rre d unde r Title VII a s we ll. Unde r Title VII, a

c om pla ina n t m ust file c ha

rge s with theEEOC within 180 da y s of the
a lle ge d disc rim ination, or 300 da y s if the c om

pla ina n t initia lly

institute d proc e e dings with a

sta te or loc a l a ge nc y . 42 U.S.C . § 2000e

– 5(e ); se e Gre e n v . L.A. C ty . Supe rinte nde n t of Sc h. , 883 F.2d 1472, 1473 (9th C ir. 1989). Only the June 2013 c onfronta

tion a nd the Oc tobe r 2013 ha

ra ssm e nt, a long with the

subse que nt te rm ination, a

re not tim e ba

rre d unde r Title VII. Unde r Title VII, Fa ll m u st
3de m onstra

te , am ong othe r things, tha t “ sim ila rly situa t e d e m p loy e e s we re tre ate d
m ore favora

bly . . .” Re y naga v . Rose burg Fore

s t Prods. , 847 F.3d 678, 691 (9th C ir. 2017). Noneof the re l e va nt inc ide nts ra ise a m ate ria l que stion of fa c t a s to a prim a fa c ie c a se unde r W LAD or TitleVII. Fa ll ha s fa ile d to ide ntify

a sim ila rly situa te d individual. First, Fa ll he ld a supe rvisory

position, while Elisa

be th B lak e did not. Se e Vasque z v . C ty . of L.A. , 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th C ir. 2003). Se c ond, whileFa l l ha d be e n pre viously disc pline d for a ggre ssive be havior, Tra c y M orrison ha d no suc h disc iplina

ry re c o rd. Fina lly , J

ua n Za b a la a c c use d Fa ll of a ggre ssive be h avior, whileno suc h
c om pla i nts ha d be e n m a de a ga inst Za ba l a . Fa ll ha s fa ile d to show tha t he wa s tre ate d diffe re n tly

tha n a sim i la rly situa te d e m ploy e e . Thus, he ha s fa ile d to ra ise a que stion of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe t he r, unde r e ithe r Title VII or W LAD, he ha s a va lid prim a

fa c ie c a se of dispa

ra te tre atm e n t . W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt a ga inst Fa ll. AFFIRM E D.

4