Ellen Griffin v. the Boeing Company, 678 F. App'x 588

Ellen C. Griffin, pro se, brought employment discrimination and wage claims against Boeing, alleging Title VII discrimination (pay, assignments, termination), retaliation, and Equal Pay Act/Washington Equal Pay Act violations.
The district court granted summary judgment to Boeing on the discrimination, retaliation, and wage claims and denied Griffin’s discovery motion and motion to supplement the record; Griffin appealed.
The Ninth Circuit consolidated two appeals: Griffin I (appeal from summary judgment) and Griffin II (a later suit dismissed by the district court as barred by res judicata).
The court reviewed summary judgment de novo and reviewed discovery denial for abuse of discretion; it also considered whether Griffin’s later suit involved claims that were or could have been raised earlier.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: summary judgment was proper because Griffin failed to show similarly situated male employees received better treatment or that Boeing’s nondiscriminatory explanations were pretextual; res judicata barred the subsequent suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII discrimination (pay, assignments, termination)	Griffin argued she was paid less, given worse assignments, and fired due to sex	Boeing asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and that no similarly situated males were treated more favorably	Affirmed for Boeing: Griffin failed to raise a genuine dispute of pretext or show similarly situated males received better treatment
Equal Pay Act / WA Equal Pay Act	Griffin argued she received lower wages than male employees doing equal/substantially equal work	Boeing argued plaintiffs failed to prove equal or substantially equal work and no prima facie wage disparity	Affirmed for Boeing: no genuine dispute that males performed equal work and were paid more
Title VII retaliation	Griffin claimed termination was retaliatory for protected activity	Boeing maintained termination had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons	Affirmed for Boeing: Griffin offered no specific, substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext
Res judicata (Griffin II)	Griffin contended second suit raised new claims	Boeing argued the later claims were or could have been raised in Griffin I, involving same parties and final judgment	Affirmed for Boeing: district court properly dismissed Griffin II as barred by res judicata

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.) (elements of Title VII prima facie discrimination case)
E.E.O.C. v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 736 F.2d 510 (9th Cir.) (elements of Equal Pay Act prima facie case)
Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.) (requirement for specific, substantial circumstantial evidence to show pretext in retaliation claims)
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.) (elements and bar effect of res judicata)
Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for discovery-related rulings)
Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 104 F.3d 267 (9th Cir.) (need for specific, substantial evidence of pretext to avoid summary judgment)
Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir.) (pretext evidence standard)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (court will not consider arguments/evidence raised first on appeal)