Case Name: Shirley E. LOVELACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-29
Citations: 70 F. App'x 960
Docket Number: No. 02-36118; D.C. No. CV-01-00647-AJB
Parties: Shirley E. LOVELACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 960–960

Head Matter:
Shirley E. LOVELACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-36118.
D.C. No. CV-01-00647-AJB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2003.
Decided July 29, 2003.
Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Appellant's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shirley E. Lovelace appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Guardian Management Corporation in her employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740, 745 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
Lovelace contends that this court set out an incorrect standard for showing pretext at the summary judgment stage in Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.2002), and earlier decisions. Neither this panel nor the district court is free to ignore Ninth Circuit precedent. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, the district court properly concluded that Lovelace did not produce sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact as to whether the reasons stated for her discharge were pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Pottenger, 329 F.3d at 746-47.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.