Fatmata Sesay Osias v. County of Santa Clara

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2018
• Docket: 18-15140
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FATMATA SESAY OSIAS, AKA Fatmata No. 18-15140 Sesay, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03761-EJD Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, erroneously sued as Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Fatmata Sesay Osias, AKA Fatmata Sesay, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title

VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Zetwick

* 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). v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Osias’s retaliation

claim based on her March 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

charge because Osias failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions were

pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276,

1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining burden-shifting framework for Title VII

retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext); see also Little v.

Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must

offer “specific, substantial evidence of pretext” (citation omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Osias’s contentions regarding the

authenticity of defendant’s evidence and that the district court failed to consider

her evidence at summary judgment.

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

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

AFFIRMED.

2 18-15140