Rust v. Carondelet Health Care & Health Network
This text of 168 F. App'x 241 (Rust v. Carondelet Health Care & Health Network) 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.
Opinion
[242]*242MEMORANDUM
Jan Rust appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment dismissing her retaliation action against her former employer, Carondelet Health Network (“CHN”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Porter v. California Dep’t of Corrections, 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Rust failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation. See id. at 894. Although dissemination of an adverse employment reference can amount to an adverse employment action, Rust failed to submit sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that CHN gave Rust a negative employment reference. See Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1997).
Rust’s remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
168 F. App'x 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rust-v-carondelet-health-care-health-network-ca9-2006.