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

WALIA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M EGAN J. B RENNAN, * Postm a s te r Ge ne ra l; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35144 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-01188-JLR 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 Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 *** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pushpinde r W a lia a

ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in he r e m ploy m e nt a c tion a lle ging viola t ions of Title

VII. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED FEB 26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* M e ga

n J. B re nna

n ha s be e n substitute d for he r pre de c e ssor, John E. Potte r, a s Postm a ste r Ge ne ra l unde r Fe d. R . App. P. 43(c )(2).

** 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 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Haw n v . Ex e c . J e t Mgmt., Inc . , 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on W a lia ’ s ra c e and nationa l origin disc rim i nat ion c la im s be c a use W a lia fa ile d to ra i se a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe n da nts’ le gitim at e , nondisc rim inatory re a s ons for the ir a c t ions we re pre te xtua l. Se eid. at 1155-56, 1158 (providing fram e work for a

n a ly z ing a

disc rim ination c la im

unde r Title VII and noting tha t e vide nc e of pre te xt m

ust be spe c ific and substa ntia l). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on W a lia ’ s hostile work e nvironm e nt c la i m s be c a u se W a lia fa ile d to ra ise a tria

ble disputea s to whe the r she wa s subje c te d to c onduc t tha t wa s m otiva

t e d by he r ra c e or nationa l origin, or for e nga ging in a prote c te d a c t ivity , a

n d a lso fa i le d to ra ise a

tria ble issue a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts’ c onduc t a lte re d the c onditions of he r e m ploy m e nt a nd c re ate d a n a busive work e nv ironm e nt. Se eVasque z v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th C ir. 2004) (e le m e nts of a ra c e -ba se d hostilework e nvironm e nt c la im ); Ray

v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1245-46 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quire m e nts for re ta l iatory

ha ra ssm e nt unde r Title VII). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on W a lia ’ s re ta lia tion c la im be c a use W a lia fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble dispute a s to whe the r de fe nda nts’ 1 3 - 3 5 1 4 4 2le gitim ate , non-re t a lia tory re a sons for te rm inating he r probat iona ry e m ploy m e nt we re pre te xtua l. Se eRay , 217 F.3d at 1240 (e le m e nts of a re t a lia t ion c la im unde r Title VII); S

te gall v . C itade l Broad. C o. , 350 F.3d 1061, 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2004) (c irc um s ta

ntia l e vide n c e of pre te xt m ust be spe c ific and substa ntia l). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 1 4 4 3