Case Name: Sandie P. CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 668 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 14-16467
Parties: Sandie P. CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
Sandie P. CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-16467
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 23, 2016
Sandie P. Chu, San Francisco, CA, Pro Se.
Rebecca Ann Falk, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sandie P. Chu appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her employment action alleging race and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Chu's Title VII race discrimination claim because Chu failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more favorably or whether defendant's asserted non-discriminatory reason for involuntarily reassigning her was pretextual. See id. at 1155-56 (providing framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiffs burden is not onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to pretext).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.