Tamara Roberson v. Pacific Lutheran University

Ninth Circuit

Tamara Roberson v. Pacific Lutheran University

616 F. App'x 276

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 4, 2015·No. 13-36081·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Tamara Tricia Roberson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment, in her employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Roberson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not interviewing or hiring Roberson for the position were pre-textual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155-56, 1158 (9th Cir.2010) (providing framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research,. Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiffs burden is not onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to pretext).

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 **

Tamara Tricia Roberson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment, in her employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Roberson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not interviewing or hiring Roberson for the position were pre-textual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155-56, 1158 (9th Cir.2010) (providing framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research,. Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiffs burden is not onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to pretext).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Tamara Roberson v. Pacific Lutheran University, 616 F. App'x 276 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

616 F. App'x 276 (Tamara Roberson v. Pacific Lutheran University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related