Case Name: Debra NOVAK-SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-12
Citations: 358 F. App'x 782
Docket Number: No. 08-16253
Parties: Debra NOVAK-SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 782–782

Head Matter:
Debra NOVAK-SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-16253.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2009.
Filed Nov. 12, 2009.
Daniel L. Bonnett, Esquire, Martin & Bonnett, PLLC, Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esquire, Martin & Bonnett, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey Scott Judd, Esquire, Littler Mendelson, PC, Las Vegas, NV, John Mark Ogden, Wade Swanson, Littler Mendelson, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for DefendantAppellee.
Before: RYMER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District Judge.
The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Debra Novak-Scott, a City of Phoenix employee, appeals the district court's summary judgment dismissing her Title VII retaliation claim against the City of Phoenix. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Head v. Glacier, 413 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir.2005).
The district court properly concluded that Ms. Novak-Scott failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. She did not suffer the type of significant harm that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 60, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court, summary judgment was properly granted for the City of Phoenix.
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.