N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT INGR ID ANDER S,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C ARLOS DEL TOR O, Ac ting Se c re ta ry of the De pa

rtm e nt of the Navy , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 22-35158 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-05433-DGE 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 David G. Estudillo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2023 * * Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , PAEZ, a nd VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s. Ingrid Ande rs (“ Ande rs” ) a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt on he r c la im s unde r the R e ha bilita tion Ac t of 1973 for (1) de nia l of re a sona ble 

# FIL ED MAR 3 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a c c om

m odation; (2) re ta lia

tion; a nd (3) a hostilework e nvironm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. Brow n v . Luc k y Store s, Inc . , 246 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th C ir. 2001). “ W e the re fore e m ploy the s am e sta

nda rd use d by

the distric t c ourt a

nd m u st ‘ vie w the e vide n c e in the light m ost fa

v ora b le to the nonm oving pa

rty , de te rm ine whe the r the re are any ge nuine i ssue s of m ate ria l fa c t, a nd de c ide whe the r the distric t c ourt c orre c tly a pplie d the re le va

nt substa ntive la w.’ ” Transge nde r L. C

tr. v . Immigr. &C

ustoms Enf’t , 46 F.4th 771, 779 (9th C ir. 2022) (quoting Animal Le gal De f . Fund v . FDA , 836 F.3d 987, 989 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam )). 1. Ande rs c o nte nds tha t she wa s de nie d re a sona

b le a c c om

m odat ions be c a use he r supe rvisors inte ntiona lly de la y e d the inte ra c tive proc e ss. Em ploy e rs that de la y or obstruc t the inte ra c tive proc e ss m ay fa il to a c t in good fai th, a nd the y m ay the re by inc ur lia b ility “ if a re a sona ble a c c om

m odation would ha

ve be e n possible . ” Vinson v . Thomas , 288 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th C ir. 2002) (quoting Barne tt v . U.S. Air, Inc . , 228 F.3d 1105, 1116 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba n c ), v ac ate d on othe r grounds sub nom. US Airw ay s, Inc . v . Barne tt , 535 U.S. 391 (2002)). Here , vie w ing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to Ande rs, no re a sona ble juror c ould find tha

t he r supe rvisors de la

y e d or obstruc te d the inte ra c tive proc e s s. C f. 2Te rre l l v . USAir , 132 F.3d 621, 627–28 (11th C ir. 1998) (holding tha t a thre e m onth de la

y in providing a spe c ia l ke y boa rd wa s not unre a sona

ble , c onside ring the e m ploy e r ha d e sta

blishe d inte rim

m e a sure s to a c c om

m odate the e m

ploy e e ). Ande rs a l so c onte nds tha

t she wa s de nie d

re a sona b le a c c om

m odat ions be c a use he r supe rvisor re fuse d he r re que st to instal l highe r c ubic le wa lls. Howe ve r, “ [a ] n e m

ploy e r is not obliga

te d to providean e m

ploy e e the a c c om m odation he re que sts or pre fe rs[;] the e m ploy e r ne e d only

provide som e re a s ona ble a c c o m

m odation.” Zivk

ov ic v . S. C

al. Edison C

o. , 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th C ir. 2002) (quota

tion omitte d). The Navy

provide d re a sona

ble a c c om m odations by

ta king a lte rnative ste ps to im prove the func tiona lity

of Ande rs’ s voic e re c ognition softwa re . 2. Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora b le to Ande rs, no re a s ona ble juror c ould find tha

t Ande rs’ s supe rvisors re ta lia te d a ga i nst he r. Ande rs c o nte nds tha

t a supe rvisor re ta lia

te d a ga inst he r by

de ny ing he r re que s t to work pa

rt-tim e a fte r m ate rnity

le ave . Eve n a ssum ing Ande rs c an e sta blish a prim a

fa c i e c a se of re ta lia

tion ba se d on the de n i a l, we m u st a ffirm . Ande rs fa ils to ra ise a

ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t whe the r De fe nda nt’ s nonre ta lia tory re a sons for thede nia l we re pre te xtua l. Se e C oons v . Se c ’yof U.S. De

p’t
3of Tre asury , 383 F.3d 879, 887–88 (9th C ir. 2004) (de sc ribing theburde n-shifting

ana ly sis a pplic a ble to re ta lia

tion c la im s). W i th re spe c t to Ande rs’ s othe r a lle gations of re ta l iatory

c onduc t, Ande rs fa ils to c re ate a tria ble issue re ga

rding whe the r supe rvisors e nga g e d in a d ve rse e m ploy m e nt a c t ion. Se e Ray

v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha t “ a n a c tion is c ogniz a ble a s a n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c t ion if it is re a sona bly like ly to de te r e m ploy e e s from e n g a ging in prote c te d a c tivity ” ). For e xam ple , Ande rs sta

te s tha t a supe rvisor c a lle d

he r a “ w hine r” and rolle d

he r e y e s whe n Ande rs inform e d he r that he r a c c om

m odations we re not working properly , but “ pe tty slights, m

inor annoy anc e s, a

nd sim ple la c k of good m anne rs” do not a m ount to a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tions. Burlington N . & Santa Fe

Ry . C o. v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). 3. The distric t c ourt a lso c orre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on Ande rs’ s hostilework e nvironm e nt c la im . Assuming, without de c i ding, tha t a hostilework e nvironm e nt c a use of a c tion is c ogniz a

b l e unde r the R e h a

bilita tion Ac t, se e B row n v . C

ity of Tuc son , 336 F.3d 1181, 1190 (9th C ir. 2003), Ande rs’ s supe rvisors’ c onduc t wa s not suffic ie ntly “ se ve re or pe rva s ive ” to c re ate a hostile work e nvironm e nt, Pav o n v . Sw ift Transp. C o . , 192 F.3d 902, 908 (9th C ir. 1999). AFFIRM E D. 4