Nora Lavery-Petrash v. Catholic Healthcare West
670 F. App'x 586
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Nora Lavery‑Petrash, proceeding pro se, sued her employer alleging age discrimination (ADEA and FEHA), sex discrimination (Title VII and FEHA), and retaliation under federal and California law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the employer; Lavery‑Petrash appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The district court concluded Lavery‑Petrash failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact on age discrimination elements and on whether age was the motivating factor.
- For sex discrimination, the court found the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons for restricting certain tasks were not shown to be pretextual.
- For retaliation, the court found Lavery‑Petrash offered no specific, substantial evidence of pretext; timing alone was insufficient.
- The court also rejected plaintiff’s arguments about an expert‑report sanction and alleged prejudice from case delays related to counsel issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (ADEA & FEHA) | Employer discriminated against her because of age | Employer had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; plaintiff failed to show age motivated actions | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue on age discrimination prima facie / causation |
| Sex discrimination (Title VII & FEHA) | Employer unlawfully limited tasks due to sex | Restrictions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons | Affirmed: plaintiff did not show employer's reasons were pretextual |
| Retaliation (federal & FEHA) | Adverse actions were retaliatory for protected activity | Employer offered legitimate reasons; plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to show pretext | Affirmed: no specific, substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext; timing alone insufficient |
| Expert report / procedural delay | Court/process delayed and prejudiced her; expert disclosure was improper | Plaintiff failed to comply with magistrate’s order to provide her expert report; delays tied to counsel issues | Affirmed: plaintiff did not follow court instruction to disclose expert; delay/prejudice claims unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1987) (standard of review and prima facie elements framework for discrimination claims)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (Title VII burden and pretext analysis at summary judgment)
- Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of Title VII framework to FEHA claims)
- Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of retaliation claim and pretext evidence requirements)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l., Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000) (prima facie elements for age discrimination under FEHA)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123 (Cal. 2005) (retaliation/FEHA pretext analysis aligns with federal standards)