Case Name: Juliet ARVAKHI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-23
Citations: 678 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 15-56923
Parties: Juliet ARVAKHI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Juliet ARVAKHI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56923
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 23, 2017
Juliet Arvakhi, Pro Se
Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Craig Clemmensen has been substituted for his predecessor, Julian Castro, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juliet Arvakhi appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her Title VII action alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi's hostile work environment claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant's alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi's retaliation claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she suffered an adverse action as a result of engaging in protected activity. See Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 646 (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.