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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED PAR C E L SER

VIC E, INC ., De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-35505 D.C . No. 6:20-c v-00077-SEH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 5, 2023 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : SC HR OEDER , HAW KINS, and C ALLAHAN, C i rc u it Judge s. De e na W a shington a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in he r Title VII e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination a c t ion a ga inst Unite d Parc e l Se rvic e , Inc
. (“ UPS” ). W a s hington a l le ge s tha t UPS de c line d to inte rvie w or hire he r for two



# F IL ED
JUN 7 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).pa

rt-tim e pa c ka ge c e nte r supe rvisor positions a n d a pa rt-tim e pa c ka ge ha

ndle r position in reta lia

t ion for he r re porting of ha ra s sm e nt by anothe r e m

ploy e e . The ha ra ssm e nt a

nd re porting took pla

c e thre e y e ars e arlie r whe n W a shington worke d in Hum an R e sourc e s at UPS. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of UPS on W a shington’ s re ta lia

tion c la im s . W a shington fai le d to show a ny ge nuine issue s of m a te ria l fa c t re ga

rding a c a usa l c o nne c tion be twe e n

he r re porting of ha

ra ssm e nt by a UPS e m

ploy e e in 2016 a

nd UPS’ s de c ision in 2019 to not inte rvie wor hire he r for the thre e positions. Se e Univ . of Te x . Sw

. Me dic al C

tr. v . N assar , 570 U.S. 338, 360 (2013) (holding tha t “ Title VII re ta lia

tion c la im s m

ust be prove d
a c c ording to tra ditiona l princ i ple s of but-for c a usat ion [whic h] . . . re q

uire s proof that the unla w ful re t a lia

tion would not ha

ve oc c urre d in the a

bse nc e of the a lle ge d wrongful a c tion or a c tions of thee m ploy e r.” ). The re is no e vide nc e in the re c ord of “ b ut-for c a

usation” o r tha

t the e m ploy e e W a shington re

porte d in 2016 ha d a

ny role in hiring for the p o sitions in 2019. Eve n if W a shington had e sta blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se , UPS provide d le gitim ate nondisc rim inatory re a sons for not inte

rvie wing or hiring W a shington for the p ositions. W e have he ld tha t if a prim a fa c ie c a se is e sta

blishe d, the de fe nda

nt ha s the burde n of produc tion to “ artic ulate som e le gitim a te , nondisc rim inatory
2re a s on for the c ha l le nge d a c tion[,] ” and tha t if this burden is m e t , the pla intiff the n
m ust “ show tha

t the artic ulate d re a s on is pre te xtua l.” Se e Opara v . Ye lle n , 57 F.4th 709, 723 (9th C ir. 2023); s e e also Ruggle s v . C al. Poly te c hnicState Univ
. , 797 F.2d 782, 786 (9th C ir. 1986). There a sons UPS provide d we re tha t : W a shington
wa s ove rqua lifie d for the pa c ka ge ha ndle r position a

nd unlike ly

to re m a in in the position give

n he r state d de sire to re turn to working in Hum an R e sourc e s at UPS; UPS ge ne ra lly

doe s not hiree m

ploy e e s who pre viously worke d a s full-tim e
m ana ge m e nt ba c k a s pa

rt-tim e hourly

worke rs be c a

use of pote ntia l c o nflic ts of inte re s t; a nd W a shington’ s prior re lationship with a UPS m ana ge r and the
m ana ge r’ s ongoing pa

y m e nt of c hild support to he r pose d pote ntia l c onflic t s of inte re s t unde r UPS’ s Em

ploy e e R e lationship Policy . W a shington ha s fa ile d to show ge nuine i ssue s of m at e ria l fa c t tha t UPS’ s proffe re d re a s ons for de c lining to inte rvie w or hire he r for the positions were pre te xt for re ta l iation. W a shington further c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in c onc luding tha

t a sta te m e nt from

a UPS e m ploy e e who inte rvie w e d he r for the pa rt-tim e pa c ka ge ha ndle r position wa s ina d

m issiblehe arsay . W e a fford broa d disc re tion to a distric t
c ourt’ s e v ide ntia

ry rulings. Se e Sprint/Unite d Mgmt. C o. v . Me nde lsohn , 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008). The

re is no re a son to ove rturn the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of

3sum

m ary judgm e nt on the ba s is of a n e vide ntia

ry c ha lle nge ra ise d for the first tim e
on a ppe a l
. AFFIRM E D.

4