Court Opinion

ID: 9964741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 18:00:55.055363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.583327
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBY BRADLEY,                                   No. 23-15569

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02419-DAD-CKD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
ASSISTANCE,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Ruby Bradley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

her action alleging race discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and

retaliation under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s race

discrimination claims because Bradley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether she was qualified for the positions for which she applied. See

Campbell v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting

forth the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII); Guz v.

Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (Cal. 2000) (setting forth the elements of a

prima facie case of discrimination under FEHA).

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s failure-

to-prevent-discrimination claim because Bradley failed to raise a triable dispute as

to whether she was subjected to discrimination. See Featherstone v. S. Cal.

Permanente Med. Grp., 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258, 272 (Ct. App. 2017).

(“Where . . . a plaintiff cannot establish a claim for discrimination [under FEHA],

the employer as a matter of law cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent

same[.]”).

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s

retaliation claims because Bradley failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether

defendant retaliated against her. See Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric.

Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing

                                          2                                    23-15569
elements of Title VII retaliation claim); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d

1123, 1130 (Cal. 2005) (applying the same standard for retaliation claims under

FEHA).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                       23-15569