Lucia Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank

Ninth Circuit

Lucia Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank

501 F. App'x 664

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2012

Docket11-35839

StatusUnpublished

This text of 501 F. App'x 664 (Lucia Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lucia Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank, 501 F. App'x 664 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lucia Wong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action alleging unlawful termination based on race or ancestry in violation of Washington state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 682 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was performing satisfactorily for purposes of a prima facie case of discrimination and, in any event, whether Wells Fargo’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her was pretex-tual. See Milligan v. Thompson, 110 Wash.App. 628, 42 P.3d 418, 423 (2002) (stating elements for a prima facie case of discrimination and explaining burden shifting framework); see also Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir.2001) (unsupported subjective statement about defendant’s motive is insufficient to defeat summary judgment); F.T.C. v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.1997) (conclusory, self-serving affidavit lacking detailed facts and supporting evidence insufficient to create dispute of material fact).

Contrary to Wong’s contention on appeal, Wells Fargo’s belief that Wong violated federal regulations constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her, even if Wong did not actually violate federal regulations. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir.2002) (“[Cjourts only require that an employer honestly believed its reason for its actions, even if its reason is foolish or trivial or even baseless.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Lucia Wong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action alleging unlawful termination based on race or ancestry in violation of Washington state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 682 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wong failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was performing satisfactorily for purposes of a prima facie case of discrimination and, in any event, whether Wells Fargo’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her was pretex-tual. See Milligan v. Thompson, 110 Wash.App. 628, 42 P.3d 418, 423 (2002) (stating elements for a prima facie case of discrimination and explaining burden shifting framework); see also Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir.2001) (unsupported subjective statement about defendant’s motive is insufficient to defeat summary judgment); F.T.C. v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.1997) (conclusory, self-serving affidavit lacking detailed facts and supporting evidence insufficient to create dispute of material fact).

Contrary to Wong’s contention on appeal, Wells Fargo’s belief that Wong violated federal regulations constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her, even if Wong did not actually violate federal regulations. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir.2002) (“[Cjourts only require that an employer honestly believed its reason for its actions, even if its reason is foolish or trivial or even baseless.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 F. App'x 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucia-wong-v-wells-fargo-bank-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack