T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e M a rvi n J . G a rbi s , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** * the D i s tr i c tof

M a ry l a nd, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T YV ON NE L E R AMO,

P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v . P R E MI E R AN E S T HE S I A ME DI C AL G R O U P , aC a l i f

orni aG e ne r a l P a rtne r s hi p; K A M A LN A TH I Y ER; W . BRU CE SC URLOCK; KA I L DHA LI W AL,

D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s . N o. 11- 16860 D. C. No . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 0 8 3 - LJ O- J LT ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 14, 2013 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: F IS H E R and N G U Y E N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G A R B IS , D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED MA R 27 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P l ai nt i ff Y vo nn e L er am o sued P re m i erA nesthesi a M edi ca l G roup and three of i t s partners , al l egi ng w orkp l ac e di sc ri m i nat i on . L er am o app ea l s the di stri ct court ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entfor the defendant s. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 1 . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ary ju d g m en t o n L er am o ’s di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e ntc l a i m s . A f t e rthe de f

e nda nt s a rt i c ul a t e d l e gi t i m a t e nondi s c r i m i na t oryr e a s ons – poorpe r f orm a nc e a nd s t a f

f i ng di f f i c ul t i e s – f

orr e duc i ng L e r a m o ’s h o u r s a n de v e n tu a llyr e f u s in g to r e n e w h e rc o n tr a c t, L e r a m o f a ile dto pres entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d i nferthatthese proffe re d r e a s o n s w e r e p r e te x t f

o rd is c r im in a tio n . L e r a m o ’s s o le a r g u m e n t is th a t p r e te x t is a lw a y s aq u e s tio n f

o rth e ju ry . T h is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. Se e, e . g. , B odet t v. C oxC om , Inc. , 366 F . 3d 736, 744- 45 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( a f f i rm i ng s um m a ryj udgm e nt on di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e ntc l a i m w he r e pl a i nt i f f f a i l e d t o c om e f

orw a r d w i th a ny e v id e n c e o f

p r e te x t) . L e r a m o h a s p r e s e n te dn o e v id e n c e , b e y o n dh e rp o s s ib le m i ni m al qu al i fi ca t i on s f or the j ob , thatw ou l d sho w thatthe defendant s’ proffe re d r e a s o n s f o rth e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s a r e n o t w o rth yo f c r e d e n c e o rth a t w o u ld othe rw i s e r a i s e a n i nf

e r e nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on. S he c a s t s a s pe r s i ons on the d e f e n d a n ts ’ e v id e n c e o f

h e rp o o rp e r f

o rm a n c e , b u t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ e v id e n c e is a dm i s s i bl e , c r e di bl e a nd unc ontr ove rt e d.3

2 . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ary ju d g m en t o n L er am o ’s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m s . C ont e m por a ne ous doc um e nt s pr ove tha tthe de c i s i on t o r e m ove L e r a m o f r om obs t e tr i c s c a l l s tha tr e s ul t e d i n he rhour s be i ng r e duc e d w a s m a de b e f o r e h e rc o - w o rk e rm a d e th e o f f e n s iv e c o m m e n t. T h e d e f e n d a n ts o p te dn o t to r e ne w L e r a m o’ s c ontr a c tm or e tha n ay e a r( 14 m onths ) a f t e rs he c om pl a i ne d about the c om m e nt . W he n t e m por a l pr oxi m i tyi s the onl ye vi de nc e of ac aus a l ne xus b etw een p ro t ect ed act i v i ty an dan ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n , th e p ro x i m i ty m u st b e m u c h c lo s e rto c r e a te th e in f e r e n c e . See C lark Cnt

y. Sch. D ist. v. B re eden , 532 U .S . 2 6 8 , 2 7 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( c itin g w ith ap p r o v a l S e v e n th a n dT e n th C ir c u it ca se s hol di ng that3- and 4 -m on th p er i od s w er e i nsuffi ci entt o cre at e an i nfer ence o f ac au s a l n e x u s ) ; Ma n a t t v . B a n k o f A m. , 339 F . 3d 792, 802 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha ta9- m onth l aps e be tw e e n the pl a i nt i f f’ s pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi tya nd the defe nd ant ’ s a l l eged adverse deci si on w as t oo l ar ge t o cre at e an i nfer ence of a causal nexu s) . 3 . B ec ause L er am o h as fa i l ed t o cre at e tri abl e i ss ues of f ac ton her d is c r im in a tio n c la im s , w e n e e dn o t d e c id e th e o th e ris s u e s r a is e din h e rap p e a l, such as w hether s he w as an em pl oyee or i nd ependentcontra ct or of P re m i er A ne s the s i aM e di c a l G r oup. AF F I RME D.