Roseanna Robinson v. Alameda County
680 F. App'x 568
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roseanna Robinson was hired in 1998 as a part‑time Alameda County peace officer and, over a decade, filed multiple internal and governmental complaints alleging discrimination and harassment by supervisors.
- In 2010 Robinson was offered promotion to full‑time peace officer conditioned on passing a psychological evaluation, which she failed.
- After failing the evaluation, the County denied the promotion and stopped scheduling Robinson for her part‑time shifts, citing failure to meet Cal. Gov’t Code § 1031 peace‑officer standards.
- Robinson sued alleging, inter alia, Title VII retaliation—claiming the failed psychological evaluation (and the County’s enforcement steps) were pretext for retaliation for her prior protected complaints.
- At summary judgment the district court found Robinson failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the evaluation or enforcement was pretextual; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a failed psych evaluation was pretext for Title VII retaliation | Robinson: evaluation results/follow‑up enforcement were fabricated/improperly influenced or procedurally irregular and therefore evidence of retaliatory motive | County: action based on legitimate, nonretaliatory reason—failure to meet §1031 standards justified denial of promotion and scheduling changes | Held for County: Robinson failed to raise a triable issue of pretext |
| Whether new arguments/evidence raised for first time on appeal may be considered | Robinson: introduces procedural‑irregularity evidence and other arguments on appeal | County: evidence/arguments not presented below should not be considered on appeal | Held: Court applies general rule barring new arguments/evidence on appeal and declines to consider them |
| Whether alleged disregard of psychologist’s use‑restrictions supports inference of retaliation | Robinson: County ignored restrictions on evaluation use, showing retaliatory motive | County: restrictions didn’t change that part‑time and full‑time positions are subject to §1031; County consistently cited §1031 noncompliance | Held: Ignoring evaluation restrictions did not create a triable pretext issue |
| Whether procedural violations of County rules indicate retaliatory motive | Robinson: County violated charter/civil‑service procedures when removing her from schedule | County: enforcing statutory §1031 competence requirement is legitimate and does not imply retaliation | Held: Procedural irregularities alone, given enforcement of §1031, did not suffice to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Swoger v. Rare Coin Wholesalers, 803 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment review standard and view evidence for nonmovant)
- Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir.) (general rule barring new arguments on appeal)
- Bolker v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 760 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir.) (articulating limits on appellate consideration of new arguments)
- O’Rourke v. Seaboard Surety Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, Inc.), 887 F.2d 955 (9th Cir.) (argument must be raised sufficiently below for trial court to rule)
- United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.) (evidence first presented on appeal cannot create triable issue if not presented below)
- Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 419 F.3d 885 (9th Cir.) (procedural irregularities may support inference of pretext but not every irregularity does)