Court Opinion

ID: 9366042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 19:01:10.809005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.982159
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRITTNEI LEE,                                   No.    21-55982

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:20-cv-02236-PA-PJW
 v.

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Acting                   MEMORANDUM*
Secretary, United States Department of
Homeland Security, a government entity,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Brittnei Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

her Title VII employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d

      *
             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).
1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lee failed to

satisfy her burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination where the

record reflects that Lee violated her employer’s code of conduct and that no

employee who used their cellphone in the same manner as Lee was disciplined

differently. See id. at 1156 (setting forth burden-shifting framework for Title VII

actions and explaining that to establish a prima facie case a plaintiff must show

“(1) that they are members of a protected class; (2) that they were qualified for

their positions and performing their jobs satisfactorily; (3) that they experienced

adverse employment actions; and (4) that similarly situated individuals outside

[their] protected class were treated more favorably” (internal quotation marks

omitted)); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“[I]ndividuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display

similar conduct.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      21-55982