Gloria Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-15418
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLORIA JEANETTE DAVIS, No. 22-15418

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-05866-HSG

v. MEMORANDUM* KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Gloria Jeanette Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of defendants in Davis’s employment discrimination action. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Christian v.

Umpqua Bank, 984 F.3d 801, 808 (9th Cir. 2020), and we affirm.

* 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s claims of

discrimination because Davis has failed to raise a triable dispute that her

termination, or any other adverse employment action, was taken against her due to

her race, color, sex, gender, age, or disability. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1);

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Enlow v. Salem-

Keizer Yellow Cab, 389 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 2004).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s claims of

retaliation because Davis failed to establish a causal link between any protected

activity and Davis’s termination. See, e.g., Dawson v. Entek Int’l, 630 F.3d 928,

936 (9th Cir. 2011).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s hostile

work environment claims, because the alleged conduct of Davis’s co-workers was

not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Davis’s employment.

See Vasquez v. Cnty. Of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2003).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s claims

that her employer failed to accommodate any disability, since Davis failed to

identify any accommodations that she requested, and that were rejected or ignored.

See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A); Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128,

1133 (9th Cir. 2001).

2 We reject Davis’s requests, made in her opening brief, to supplement or to

alter the record made before the district court. See Andersen v. Cumming, 827 F.2d

1303, 1305 (9th Cir. 1987).

Davis’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 3, 12), and

for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 13), are denied.

AFFIRMED.