N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
NE IM AN FAH NE ST O CK ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M AT T H E WW AG G O NE R , an individual; PAYCH E X

NO R T H AM E RICA, INC., e r r one ously nam e d in the Fir st Am e nde d Com plaint as Pay c he x, Inc .,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-56539 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-06759-B R O-JEM M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 29, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and B YB E E , C i rc uit Judge s , a nd W AL T E R , ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JAN 09 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by de signa

tion.pa ge 2

1. Fahne stoc k is tim e -barre d by the Fa i r Em

ploy m e nt a n d Housing Ac t’ s one -y e ar statute of lim ita

tions from

re ly ing on c onduc t tha

t oc c urre d prior to August 7, 2012, unle s s the c onduc t c onstitute d

a c ontinuing viola

tion. C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 12960(d). In orde r to show a c ontinuing viola

tion, Fa hn e stoc k m

ust e sta blish tha t the a lle g e dly

unla wful c onduc t

oc c urring outsidethe lim ita tions pe riod (1) wa s “ suffic ie ntly sim ila r in kind”to the a lle ge d c onduc t within the lim ita tions pe riod; (2) “ oc c urre d with re a s ona b le fre que nc y ” ; a

nd (3) ha s “ not a c quire d a

de gre e of pe rm ane nc e .” R i c ha rds v. C H2M Hill, Inc ., 29 P.3d 175, 190 (C a l. 2001). Kare n Toom e y ’ s de c ision to term inat e Fahne s toc k a nd Nic k C arr’ s de c ision not to re hire he r, m onths a fte r W a ggone r le ft Pay c he x, a re not simi la

r in kind to the pre -lim ita tions-pe riod a c tions a

ttribute d to W a ggone r. That Toom e y and C arr m ay have ta ke n Fahne s toc k’ s pe rsonne l file into a c c ount a nd the re by

give n pre se nt e ffe c t to W a g gone r’ s pre -lim ita tions-pe riod a c tions is insuffic ie nt to m ake W a ggone r’ s othe rwise unre late d a c tions sim i la r in kind to Toom

e y and C arr’ s de c isions. C f. Unite d Air Line s, Inc . v. Eva ns, 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977) (“ [T] he
e m pha sis should not be

pla c e d on m e re c ontinuity ; the c ritic a l que stion is whe the r any pre se nt viola

tion e xists.” ).pa ge 3

W a ggone r’ s pre -lim ita

tions-pe riod c o nduc t m ay hav e be e n fre que nt e nough
and suffic ie ntly

sim ila r to W a ggone r’ s c onduc t within the lim i tations pe riod, but the s itua tion re a c he d a

de gre e of pe rm an e nc e long be fore August 7, 2012. As e arly
a s April 2010, Fa

hne stoc k wa s a lle ge dly

pre ssure d to ta

k e the C FR

position. Se e C uc uz z a v. C ity of Santa C la ra , 128 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 660, 668 (C t. App. 2002) (holding tha

t a sta te of pe rm an e nc e wa s re a c he d whe n the C i ty ’ s only re sponse to pla i ntiff’ s c om

p la int a bout the loss of job dutie s wa s to givehe r the opportunity to transfe r out of the de pa

rtm e nt). And, by

June 2010, whe n

Fahne stoc k c om

pla ine d to HR a bout he r te rritory

re a ssignm e nts to no a

va il, she wa s “ on notic e that furthe r e fforts to e n d the unla

wful c onduc t

w[ould] be in va in.” Id. (c ita tion omitte d). For the s e re a s ons, Fa

hne stoc k m ay not ba se he r disc rim inat ion a nd re ta lia tion c la im s on W a ggone r’ s pre -lim ita t ions-pe riod a c tions. The c ontinuing viola

t ion doc trine , howe ve r, a

pplie s to W a g gone r’ s ha ra ssm e nt c la im . Fahne stoc k a lle ge s tha t W a ggone r’ s we e k ly

ha ra s sm e nt be ga

n be fore the lim ita

tions pe riod a

nd c ontinue d until here signe d four m onths a fte r the lim ita tions pe riod be ga

n running. B e c a

u se the re is no e vide nc e tha t the ha ra ssm e nt re a c he d a sta te of pe rm ane nc e be fore the lim i tations pe riod, we c o nside r W a ggone r’ s pre -lim ita

tions-pe riod a c tions to de te rm ine lia bility on he r hara ssm e nt c la im . Se e Nat’ l R .R . Pa sse nge r C orp. v. M orga n , 536 U.S. 101, 122 (2002)pa ge 4

(a pply ing the c ontinuing viola tion doc trine to hostile

work e nvironm e nt c la im diffe re ntly

tha n to disc rim inat ion a

nd re ta lia tion c la im s involving disc re te a c ts); R ic ha rds, 29 P.3d a

t 184–85 (re c ogniz ing tha t ha ra ssm e nt ofte n la c ks the pe rm ane nc e tha

t disc rim inatory

a c t ions ha

v e ). 2. Fahne stoc k ha s proffe re d insuffic ie nt e v ide nc e of disc rim inatory m otive to survivesum

m ary judgm e nt on he r disc rim ination c l a im . The only e vide nc e of disc rim inatory

m otive re late s to W a ggone r, but W a ggone r le ft m onths be fore Fahne stoc k wa s te rm i nate d. Nor is the re any e v ide nc e tha

t Toom e y wa s “ sim ply
c arr[y ing] out the will of” W a ggone r whe n te rm inating Fa

hne stoc k. R e e ve s v. Sa fe way Store s, Inc ., 16 C a l
. R

ptr. 3d 717, 732 n.14 (Ct. App. 2004). In fa c t, it is undispute d tha

t Toom e y te rm inate d Fahne stoc k , a long with two m e n, be c a use she de c ide d to e lim inate the C FR position. Fahne stoc k c onte nds tha

t a re a sona ble jury c ould infe r W a ggone r’ s disc rim inatory

inte nt ba se d on his tre at

m e nt of Fa

hne stoc k and he r m a l e c olle a gue s. B ut, othe r tha n Fahne stoc k’ s own spe c ulation, the re is no e vide nc e that W a ggone r’ s c onde sc e nding a nd disc oura ging a

ttitudetowa

rd he r wa s m otiva t e d by he r se x rathe r tha

n by he r poor pe rform anc e .pa ge 5

Fahne stoc k’ s re lia

nc e on Iris C ua dra

and Sa ra W ilke ning’ s te stim ony

is
e qua lly una

va iling. Ac c ording to C ua dra and W ilke ning, W a ggone r a ssigne d the te rritorie s a

nd va rious ty pe s of sa le s c re dit in a

disc rim inatory

fa shion. B ut suc h
e pisodic and c onc l usory

e vide nc e , without more , fa lls short of e sta blishing a

“ disc rim inatory

patte rn [tha

t] is proba

tive of m otive .” Dia z v. Am . Te l. & Te l., 752 F.2d 1356, 1363 (9th C ir. 1985). C ua dra ’ s te stim ony tha t W a ggone r fre que ntly

m a de le w d a

nd se xist c om

m e nts a t wom e n is a l so insuffic ie nt without
any e vide nc e tha

t the se c om

m e n ts we re c onne c te d to e m ploy m e nt de c isionm aking. Se e Ne sbit v. Pepsic o, Inc ., 994 F.2d 703, 705 (9th C ir. 1993) (sta ting tha t a c om m e n t “ utte re d in a

n am biva le nt m anne r” and not tie d to the a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion wa s insuffic ie nt to e sta blish disc rim inatory

anim us); Ha rris v. C ity of Santa M onic a , 294 P.3d 49, 65 (C a l. 2013) (“ [S] e c tion 12940(a ) doe s not purport to outla

w disc rim inatory

thoughts, be l ie fs, or stra

y re m a rks tha t a re unc onne c te d to e m

ploy m e nt de c isionm aking.” ). 3. W e a lso a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to W a ggone r and Pa

y c he x on Fa

hne stoc k’ s re ta lia

tion c la i m . In he r c o m

pla int to W a ggone r, Fahne stoc k c om pa re d he rse lf only to “ o the r re ps with sim i la r se niority le ve ls.” This didn’ t suffic ie ntly c onve y he r c o nc e rn tha

t W a ggone r wa spa ge 6

disc rim inating a ga inst he r be c a u se of he r se x. Se e Ya

nowitz v. L’ O re a l USA, Inc ., 116 P.3d 1123, 1134 (C a l. 2005). W hile Fahne stoc k

did e xpre ss he r c onc e rns a bout se x-ba se d disc rim ination to HR and John Hic km an, the re is no e vide nc e tha t the d e c ision-m a

k e rs be h ind the a lle ge dly

a dve rse e m

p loy m e nt a c tions e ve n kne w a bout the se c o m

pla ints, le t a lone de c ide d to re ta lia te be c a use of the m . Se e id. a

t 1130 (holding tha

t a prim a fa c ie c a s e of re ta lia

tion re quire s a

“ c a usa l link”be twe e n the e m ploy e e ’ s prote c te d a c t ivity and the e m

p loy e r’ s a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion). 4. Fahne stoc k’ s ha

ra s sm e nt c la im

a lso doe sn’ t

survive sum

m ary judgm e nt. The a lle ge d ly

ha ra ssing c o nduc t c onsiste d of, a m ong othe r things, c a sua l winks,
c onde sc e nding c om

m e nts, e y e rolls a

nd the use of a

n unfla tte ring pic t

ure . All the s e a lle gations, e ve n whe n ta ke n toge t he r, do not e sta

blish c onduc t

tha t wa s

“ se ve re e nough or suffic ie ntly pe rva sive to a lte r the c onditions of em ploy m e nt a nd
c re ate a work e nvironm e nt tha

t qua lifie s a s hostile or a

busive to e m

ploy e e s be c a use of the ir se x.” Ly le v. W arne r B ros. Te le vision Prod., 132 P.3d 211, 220 (C a l. 2006) (c ita

tions omitte d). 5. B e c a use Fahne stoc k ’ s c la im s of disc rim inat ion, re t a lia tion a nd ha ra ssm e nt fa il, he r de riva

tive c la im tha t Pay c he x fa ile d to pre v e n t W a ggone r’ s disc rim ination, re ta lia

tion a nd ha ra ssm e nt a g a inst he r a lso fa i ls.pa ge 7

6. B e c a use the e xc lude d sta

te m e nts a re too spe c ulative and c onc lusory to ra ise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t , Fahne stoc k ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the distric t c o urt’ s e v i de ntia

ry rulings, e v e n if e rrone ous, we re pre judic ia l. Se e Am

bat v. C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 757 F.3d 1017, 1032 (9th C ir. 2014). AFFIRM E D.