Case Name: Alisa McKENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an entity; Does, 1-40, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-20
Citations: 600 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 13-56230
Parties: Alisa McKENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an entity; Does, 1-40, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BENAVIDES, TASHIMA, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Alisa McKENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an entity; Does, 1-40, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-56230.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2015.
Filed April 20, 2015.
Kenneth Baiseh, Esquire, Dennis M. Grady, Grady And Associates, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jessica A. Chasin, Emily J. Fox, Claudette G.. Wilson, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: BENAVIDES, TASHIMA, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Fortunato P. Benavides, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alissa McKenney appeals the district court's judgment on the pleadings for the United Parcel Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
McKenney's claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) with respect to her 2008 transfer and demotion to supervisor were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Cal. Gov't Code § 12960(d). Her lack of knowledge does not preserve these claims because she filed her complaint more than one year and 90 days after the 2008 transfer. See Cal. Gov't Code § 12960(d)(1). The continuing violations doctrine also does not apply because her 2008 transfer obtained a degree of permanence. Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798, 823, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 87, 29 P.3d 175 (2001) (determining the continuing violations doctrine applies when an employer's multiple unlawful actions are sufficiently similar in kind, occur with reasonable frequency, and have not acquired a degree of permanence).
By failing to replead her failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process FEHA claims with respect to her December 2010 conversation with Thompson and Kocheck, McKenney voluntarily dismissed and therefore waived these claims. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir.2012).
McKenney failed to allege sufficient facts to state claims for disability discrimination, gender discrimination, or retaliation. She never alleged that she applied for or was rejected from any particular open manager positions since her December 2010 conversation, or that UPS used a system that did not provide for applications. McKenney also failed to allege that Kocheck, who purportedly said she would not be promoted until she dropped her legal challenges, had control over promotions. As a result, McKenney did not allege sufficient facts to establish an adverse employment action, a necessary component of all three claims.
Because McKenney already had an opportunity to amend her complaint, the district court did -not err in dismissing her complaints with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.