N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ARM EN B LAIR ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVID SHULKIN, Se c re ta ry , De pa rtm e nt of Ve te rans Affa i rs,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-55748 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-07478-C AS-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 6, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd EZR A , ** Distric t Judge
. C arm e n B la ir a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of the De pa

rtm e nt of Ve te rans Affa irs (“ VA” ). B la ir, a Prote sta nt, file d a n
a c tion a ga inst theVA a lle ging tha t the De p artm e nt viola

te d Title VII by

firing he r from he r position a s a

c ha pla i n on a c c o unt of he r C hristia n re ligion. 

# FIL ED

MAR 28 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.Unde r the Mc Donne ll Douglasfra m e w ork, a pla intiff m ust first e s ta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ination, a t whic h point theburde n the n shifts to the
e m ploy e r to a

rtic ulate a le gitim a te , non-disc rim inatory re a son for the c ha l le nge d
a c tion. Se e Mc

Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973) If the e m ploy e r m e e ts this burden, the pla intiff m ust the n show tha

t the de fe n da

nt's sta te d re a son is pre te xt for unla wful disc rim ination. Id . at 804. In c a se s whe re the
sam e a c t or wa s re sponsiblefor both a pla intiff's hiring a

nd the subse que nt a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion, we a

pply the “ sam e -a c tor infe re nc e ,” and re quire tha t the pla i ntiff m ake an “ e xtra ordina rily strong showing of disc

rim ination.” C

oghlan v
. Am. Se afoods C

o. LLC , 413 F.3d 1090, 1097 (9th C ir. 2005). He re , B la ir introduc e d e vide nc e tha t c e rta in of he r c o l le a gue s m a de sta te m e nts a lle ging tha

t she wa s una

ble to m i niste r e ffe c tive l y to pa tie nts of othe r fa iths. For the purpose s of sum m ary judgm e nt, we follow thedistric t c ourt in
a ssum ing tha

t B l a ir ha s thus de m onstra te d a prim a fa c ie c a s e of re ligious disc rim ination. The VA ha s in turn proffe re d le g itim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a sons for dism issing B la i r, na

m e ly tha t she fa ile d to inte grate with theothe r m e m be rs of the hospic e unit’ s inte rdisc iplina ry te a m , a nd tha t she did not m a inta in a de q uate patie nt
c ha rts. The burde n t

he re fore shifts to B la ir to show tha t the re are ge nuine issue s of
2m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the e xpla nations offe re d by

the VA a re in fa c t pre t e xtua l. Se e

, e .g. , Haw n v . Ex e c . J

e t Mgmt., Inc
. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th C ir. 2010). A pla intiff m ay

de m onstra

te tha t a de fe nda nt’ s nondisc rim inatory

ra tiona le is pre te xtua l “ e ithe r dire c tly by pe rsua ding thec ourt tha

t a disc rim inatory

re a son
m ore like ly

m otiva t e d the e m

ploy e r or indire c tly

by showing tha

t the e m ploy e r's proffe re d e xpla

nation is unworthy

of c re de nc e .” Te

x . De p ’t of C mty . Affairs v
. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). In this c a se , B la ir a dditiona l ly m u st ove rc om e the “ sam e -a c tor infe re nc e ,” a s she a lle g e s tha t C ha pla i n Va sque z an d Dr. R ose nfe l d we re re sponsiblefor both he r hiring a n d he r dism issa l from

the hospic e unit within a

pe riod of thre e m o nths. M ore ove r, C ha pla in Va sque z and Dr. R ose nfe l d kne w tha

t B la i r wa s a

C hristia n whe n the y

hire d he r for the position of a

“ Prote sta nt c ha pla in.” The ve ry

ba sis upon whic h B la ir c la im s she wa s disc rim inate d a ga inst—

he r C hristia

n fa ith— wa s a pre re quisite for he r initia l
e m ploy m e nt. He re , B la ir is una

ble to offe r e ithe r dire c t or c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e suffic i e nt to de fe a t the sa

m e -a c tor infe re nc e and to ra ise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the VA’ s proffe re d nondisc rim i natory ra tiona le s are pre te xtua l. Although were c ogniz e tha t B la ir ha s introduc e d

e vide n c e that c e rta in pa

tie nts
3re ga

rde d he r a s a

c om pe te nt c ha

pla in, this showing doe s not re but the VA’ s
a sse rtion tha

t it be lie v e d tha

t B la ir wa s una

b le to inte grat e into thehospic e unit te am . To the e xte nt tha

t B la ir c l a im s tha

t the VA im

pe rm issibly

c re ate d a “ se c ula

r” work e nvironm e nt, she is una ble to show tha

t the De pa

rtm e nt a c te d out of a

nim us towa rd he r re ligion. 1 In light of B la ir’ s fa ilure to pre se nt e vide n c e of pre t e xt, we
c onc lude tha

t the distric t

c ourt prope rly

grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt for the VA on B la ir’ s c la im

of re ligious discrim ination. The distric t c ourt de c ision is AFFIRM E D.

1 The Se ve nth C irc uit ha s he ld tha t the VA m

ust “ wa l k a fine c onstitutiona l line ” in providing spiritua l c are for its pa

tie nts, a n d thus m ay

institute an “ e c um e nic a l a

pproa c h to its c ha

pla inc y .” Baz v . W

alte rs , 782 F.2d 701, 709 (7th C ir. 1986). As we do he re , the c ourt in Baz re je c t e d the pla intiff’ s Title VII c la im a lle ging re ligious discrim ination, c onc luding tha t he wa s fire d not dueto his re ligious be lie fs, but be c a use his “ vie w of his func tion a s a Ve te ran’ s Adm inistra

tion c ha p la in . . . wa s de c ide dly diffe re nt from the de m ands of his supe riors.” Id . at 705. 4