Lisa Washington v. Lowe's Hiw, Inc., 692 F. App'x 413

Lisa Washington, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in her employment lawsuit alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment, equal pay violations, retaliation, and a RICO claim.
Claims were brought under Title VII, California FEHA and labor statutes, the federal equal pay statute (29 U.S.C. § 206), and RICO; district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on all claims.
Washington challenged denial of a raise and her termination as discriminatory and alleged sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.
She also alleged unequal pay compared to opposite-sex coworkers and retaliation for protected activity; separately, she asserted a RICO claim based on alleged unlawful conduct by the employer.
The district court found insufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact on pretext (discrimination), severity/pervasiveness (hostile work environment), substantially equal work (equal pay), prima facie retaliation, and predicate racketeering activity (RICO).
Washington requested appointment of counsel on appeal; the Ninth Circuit denied the request and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sex discrimination (raise/termination)	Washington argued the denial of a raise and termination were motivated by sex and pretextual	Employer maintained legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for decisions	Affirmed — Washington failed to raise a triable issue of pretext
Hostile work environment	Washington claimed sexual harassment created a hostile environment	Employer argued harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to alter employment conditions	Affirmed — no genuine dispute that conduct was severe or pervasive
Equal pay	Washington claimed she was paid less than opposite-sex employees for substantially equal work	Employer contended pay differences were not for substantially equal work	Affirmed — no triable issue that work was substantially equal
Retaliation	Washington alleged adverse actions were taken in retaliation for protected activity	Employer asserted absence of causal link or protected activity sufficient to establish prima facie case	Affirmed — Washington did not establish a prima facie retaliation claim
RICO claim	Washington alleged employer engaged in racketeering activity supporting civil RICO	Employer argued no predicate racketeering acts were shown	Affirmed — no genuine dispute that defendant engaged in racketeering activity

Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review and elements for FEHA/Title VII claims)
Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (McDonnell Douglas framework for sex discrimination under FEHA and Title VII)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination)
Ariz. ex rel. Horne v. Geo Grp., Inc., 816 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2016) (hostile work environment severity/pervasiveness analysis)
Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (hostile work environment elements)
Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1999) (prima facie elements for equal pay claims under federal law)
Green v. Par Pools Inc., 111 Cal. App. 4th 620 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (elements for California equal pay claims)
Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001) (retaliation analysis using McDonnell Douglas framework)
Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996) (elements of a civil RICO claim)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate forfeiture for issues not raised in opening brief)