N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT RHONDA W ILKINSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C LAR K C OUNTY SC H O OL DISTRIC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15853 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-01083-JC M -RJJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 12, 2014 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd, M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. R honda W ilkinson a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt following a

be n c h tria l in he r e m

ploy m e nt a c tion a lle ging re ta lia tion in viola

tion of Title VII. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c lusions of la w a nd for c le a

r e rror the distric t c ourt’ s findings of



# FIL ED JUN 18 2014 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 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).fa c t . Milic e v icv . Fle tc he r J one s Imports, Ltd. , 402 F.3d 912, 915 (9th C ir. 2005). W e a ffirm . W ilkinson’ s prim ary c o nte ntion tha t she wa s de nie d he r right to a fa ir tria l be c a use the distric t c ourt judgewa s bia se d a ga inst he r is without me rit. Se eMay e s v . Le ipzige r , 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th C ir. 1984) (“ A judge ’ s pre vious a dve rse ruling a lone is not suffic i e nt bia s.” ). Nothing in the re c ord supports Wilkinson’ s c la im that the tria l judgewa s bia se d or tha t she re c e ive d a

n unfa ir tria l. Afte r re v ie wing there c ord, we c a nnot sa y tha t the distric t c ourt c le arly

e rre d by c re diting the

te stim ony of de fe nda

nt a nd de fe nda

nt’ s witne sse s ove r the te stim ony of W ilkinson. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 52(a)(6) (“ Findings of fa c t . . . m ust not be se t a side unle ss c l e arly e rrone ous, a

nd the re vie wing c ourt m

ust givedue re ga rd to thetria l c ourt’ s opportunity to judgethe witne s se s’ c re dibility .” ); Ande rson v . Be

sse me r C ity , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (“ If the distric t c ourt’ s a c c ount of the e vide nc e is pla

usiblein light of the re c ord, the c o urt of a ppe a ls m ay

not re ve rse e v e n though c onvinc e d tha t ha d it be e n

sitting a s the trie r of fa c t , it would have we ighe d the e v ide nc e diffe re ntly .” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c iding to e xc lude one of W ilkinson’ s witne sse s from the c ourtroom

or in a llowing de fe n da

nt’ s re pre se ntative to re m a in in thec ourtroom . S e e Fe d. R . Evid. 615(b); Milic e v ic , 402 1 2 - 1 5 8 5 3 2F.3d at 915 (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). W ilkinson’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning thenum be r of e xhibits adm itte d into e vide nc e , the priva c y

of he r m e dic a l a

nd ba nkruptc y re c ords, a

nd a c o worke r’ s a lle ge dly unprofe ssiona l tre atm e nt of W ilkinson a fte r the be nc h tria l a re unpe rsua sive . AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 8 5 3 3