Hubbard v. Washington Department of Corrections, 695 F. App'x 301

Samantha Hubbard, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in her employment suit alleging Title VII racial discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and a due process violation related to grievance procedures in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The district court entered summary judgment for the employer; Hubbard appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reviews summary judgment de novo.
On discrimination, the courts focused on whether Hubbard showed she met employer expectations, had similarly situated non‑protected comparators, or that the employer’s stated reasons were pretextual.
On retaliation, the courts analyzed whether Hubbard’s protected activity was causally connected to her 2012 termination (noting temporal gap issues).
On due process, the courts examined whether the CBA’s grievance procedures satisfied constitutional due process for a public employee.
The district court also denied Hubbard’s motions to appoint counsel and for oral argument; the Ninth Circuit reviewed those denials for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The appeal was affirmed in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII racial discrimination	Hubbard contends she was terminated due to race and that others outside her class were treated better	Employer asserts Hubbard did not meet expectations and had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse actions	Affirmed — Hubbard failed to raise a triable dispute on performance, comparator treatment, or pretext
Title VII retaliation	Hubbard claims protected activity led to her 2012 termination	Employer contends no causal link; temporal gap undermines causation	Affirmed — no genuine issue of material fact showing causation between protected activity and termination
Due process re: CBA grievance procedure	Hubbard argues the CBA’s grievance process did not satisfy due process	Employer contends the CBA provided adequate grievance procedures to meet due process	Affirmed — Hubbard failed to show the CBA’s procedures denied due process
Union/CBA breach & procedural motions	Hubbard alleges union rep violated the CBA and sought counsel/oral argument	Defendants assert claims lack factual support; district court properly denied counsel and oral argument	Affirmed — claims insufficiently pleaded; denials of counsel and oral argument not an abuse of discretion

Mayes v. WinCo Holder, Inc., 846 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir.) (standard of review — de novo on summary judgment)
Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.) (Title VII prima facie and burden‑shifting framework)
Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802 (9th Cir.) (retaliation prima facie elements)
Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792 (9th Cir.) (temporal gap can defeat causation inference)
Armstrong v. Meyers, 964 F.2d 948 (9th Cir.) (public employer may satisfy due process by providing CBA grievance procedures)
MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment opposing party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir.) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but still must state plausible claims)
Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Co., 926 F.2d 865 (9th Cir.) (denial of oral argument reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (issues not raised in opening brief or first raised on appeal are not considered)
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir.) (documents/facts not presented to the district court are not part of the appellate record)