Court Opinion

ID: 9821202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:53:42.057899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:48.916992
License: Public Domain

KLEINFELD, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The district court did not, in my view, err in granting summary judgement against Cortes.
Because the County of Santa Clara provided evidence and reasons that “would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the employment action,” Cortes has the burden of providing “specific and substantial” evidence, in addition to her prima facie case, that the County of Santa Clara’s proffered reasons were pretextual. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); see Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998). She did not meet this burden. Cortes was unable to point to any other employee who had a similarly lengthy history of work lacking in both quality and quantity who was treated better than her. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.2003).