Case Name: Fran SIMONTACCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 399 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 09-15858
Parties: Fran SIMONTACCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BERZON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and WOLLE, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Fran SIMONTACCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-15858.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Law Office of Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Cynthia Rusnock Hoover, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, Motor Vehicle & Public Safety Department, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BERZON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and WOLLE, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ms. Fran Simontacchi appeals from a grant of summary judgment against her on her claims that Nevada denied her equal protection of the law and retaliated against her for protected speech when it denied her certain compensation, "4800 time," for days on which she could only work part time. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
To the extent that Simontacchi claims a denial of equal protection on the basis that Nevada denied her 4800 time as an employee of its Parole and Probation Division while allowing for 4800 time for officers of the Highway Patrol, Nevada offered a rational basis for its differentiation between the employees of the divisions. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993).
To the extent that Simontacchi claims a denial of equal protection on the basis of gender discrimination, she failed to present any evidence of differential treatment based on gender.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment against Simontacchi on her First Amendment claim. Simontac-chi's speech concerned only her claim to 4800 time. Accordingly, it is doubtful that it touched on a matter of public concern, and it probably was not protected speech. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003). In any case, there is nothing in the record to support Simon-tacchi's assertion that Nevada denied her 4800 time in retaliation for her speech.
The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nevada and against Simontacchi is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision.