N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TANDY M ILLER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. GR AHAM C O UNTY, e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17091 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00333-TUC -JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SM ITH, C hie f Distric t Judge . ** Pla intiff Ta

ndy M ille r a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to de fe nda

nts Gra ham C o unty , e t al. on M ille r’ s c la im s of ge nde r and



# FIL ED D EC 24 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of R hode Isla nd, sitting by

de signa tion.nationa l origin disc rim i nat ion, inc luding a lle g a tions of a hostile work e nvironm e nt, and re ta lia

t ion, a ll of whic h she brought pursua nt to Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e , e t se q . W e a ffirm . The fa c ts of this c a se are known to the pa rtie s. W e do not repe a t the m . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd re vie w the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt de nov o . Pav oni v . C hry sle r Grp., LLC, 789 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2015). 1 M ille r’ s ge nde r and na

tiona l origin disc rim ination c la im s e a c h suffe r from the s am e de fe c t: M ille r sim ply c annot point to a

ny e vide nc e , be y ond he r own spe c ulation, tha

t sim i la rly situa te d individuals outside

of he r prote c te d

c la s s we re tre a te d m ore favora

bly tha n she wa s. Se e Aragon v . Re p ublicSilv e r State Disposal, Inc . , 292 F.3d 654, 658 (9th C ir. 2002) (to e sta b lish a prima fac ie c a se of disc rim ination, pla intiffs m ust, inte r alia, pre se nt e vide n c e tha t sim ila rly situa te d e m ploy e e s outsideof the ir prote c te d c la ss we re tre a te d m ore favora bly tha n the pla i ntiffs). M ille r points to a num be r of insta

nc e s whe re she c l a im s m a le and Hispa n ic e m ploy e e s we re tre a te d m ore fav ora bly tha n she wa s . M i lle r, howe ve r, fa ile d to e xha

ust he r a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a s to he r fa ilure to prom ote c la im s,

1 Ac c ordingly , we have c onduc te d a de nov o re vie w of M ille r’ s e vide nc e and a lle gations, e ve n those a lle g a tions thedistric t c ourt struc k on e vide ntia ry and jurisdic tiona l grounds. 2se e B .K

.B. v . Maui Polic e De

p ’t , 276 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth fa c t ors c o urts c onside r to de te rm ine if pla intiffs ha ve e xha uste d the ir a dm inistra

tive re m e die s in Title

VII c a s e s); she did not support he r une q ua l sc he duling a

nd pe rform anc e re vie w a lle gations with adm issiblee vide nc e ; a nd the re m a inde r of he r a lle gations do not c onc e rn individuals with sim ila r job dutie s to he rs, N ic holson v . Hy annis Air Serv . , Inc . , 580 F.3d 1116, 1125 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ Individua ls a

re sim ila rly situa te d whe n the y

have sim i la

r jobs a nd displa y sim ila r c onduc t.” ) (inte rna l c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt did not e rr in holding tha t M ille r fa ile d to e s ta

blish a prima fac ie c a s e of nationa l origin or ge nde r disc rim ination. M ille r trie s to sa lva ge he r ge nde r disc rim ination c la im by arguing tha

t two c om m e n ts— one from

M ic ha e l Ara

nda , a nd one from

Esga rdo Luz a nia

— c onstitute dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim i nat ion. The distric t c ourt did not err in re je c t ing M ille r’ s a rgum e nt. Assuming, argue ndo , tha t the c om m e nts c onstitute

dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ination, M ille r fa ils to a lle ge any ne xus be twe e n the c om

m e nts and a ny disc rim inatory

e m ploy m e nt a c tion. Se e Vasque

z v . C t y . of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th C ir. 2004) (ne xus re q uire d be twe e n dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ination a

nd a dve rse e m

p loy m e nt a c t ions).

3The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e n t on M ille r’ s hostilework e nvironm e nt c l a im . While M ille r ha s pre se nte d e vide nc e that she e xpe rie nc e d a

subje c tive ly

hostilee nvironm e nt, she doe s not pre se n t e vide nc e to sugge s t tha

t a re a sona ble fe m a le C a

uc a sia n c orre c tions offic e r would find the c onduc t offe nsive . Se e Mc Gine st v . GTE Se rv . C

o rp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1115 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha

t the obje c tive hostility of the e nvironm e nt m ust be c onside re d “ from

the pe rspe c tive of a

re a sona ble pe rson be longing to the ra c ia l or e thnic group of the pla intiff.” ). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt on M ille r’ s re ta lia

tion c la i m . First, m any

of the a lle gations to which M ille r points a s a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tions oc c urre d prior to M ille r e nga ging in a ny prote c te d a c tivity , and, thus, do not support he r re ta l iation c l a im s. Se e Daw son v . Ente k

Int’l , 630 F.3d 928, 936 (9th C ir. 2011) (noting tha t the re ta lia

tion c la im s to survive sum m ary judgm e nt, pla intiffs “ m

ust show the e xiste nc e of fa c ts from whic h a re a s ona ble trie r of fa c t c ould c onc lude tha t som e tim e during [the ir e m ploy m e nt] , [the y ] e nga ge d in prote c t e d a c tivity and tha t [the ir e m

ploy e r] , re ta lia

te d a ga inst [the m ] in re sponse to tha

t a c tivity ” ). And for those a c tions tha

t oc c urre d a fte r she e nga ge d in a prote c te d a c tivity , M ille r ha s fa ile d to pre se n t a

ny e vide nc e tha

t the C ounty ’ s le gitim a te re a son for ta king thea c t ion wa s pre t e xt for re ta lia tion. Se e id . 4AFFIRM E D .

5