Sage Redwind v. Western Union, LLC, 698 F. App'x 346

Background

Plaintiff Sage Redwind, proceeding pro se, sued her employer Western Union (WU) asserting Title VII discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, plus state-law defamation, and sought discovery and to amend her complaint.
The district court granted summary judgment for WU on all federal and state claims and denied various nondispositive motions; Redwind appealed.
Key contested evidence included purported "payroll records" that the district court excluded as unauthenticated.
The district court found many Title VII claims time-barred insofar as they arose more than 300 days before Redwind’s charge with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
The court applied McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting to discrimination and retaliation claims and found Redwind failed to make out prima facie cases or to show WU’s reasons were pretextual.
Redwind did not object to magistrate judge nondispositive orders, and the Ninth Circuit treated those issues as forfeited on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamation: whether statements were qualifiedly privileged	Statements were defamatory and not privileged	Statements were protected by a qualified privilege	Affirmed: Redwind failed to show statements lost qualified privilege
Title VII statute of limitations	Claims are timely	Events before 300-day filing window are barred	Affirmed: claims before 300-day limit are time-barred
Title VII discrimination (adverse action)	WU discriminated on protected grounds	WU had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons	Affirmed: no prima facie case and no evidence of pretext
Title VII harassment (hostile work environment)	Work environment was objectively hostile due to protected traits	Conduct was not sufficiently severe/related to protected traits	Affirmed: no genuine dispute of hostile work environment
Title VII retaliation (coaching memo/written warning)	Discipline was retaliatory	WU had legitimate reasons; no pretext	Affirmed: plaintiff failed to show pretext
Other alleged retaliation (adverse employment action)	Various actions were adverse	Actions were not materially adverse	Affirmed: no genuine dispute that actions were adverse
Evidentiary exclusion of payroll records	Records supported Redwind’s claims	Records were unauthenticated and inadmissible	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion excluding them
Appeal of nondispositive magistrate orders	Denial of discovery/amendment was erroneous	No timely objections to magistrate; issues forfeited	Affirmed: appellate review forfeited for lack of objections

Key Cases Cited

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)
Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
Mannex Corp. v. Bruns, 279 P.3d 278 (Or. Ct. App.) (explaining qualified privilege in defamation)
Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.) (prima facie elements for discrimination/retaliation)
Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267 (9th Cir.) (necessity of specific, substantial evidence of pretext to avoid summary judgment)
Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.) (elements for hostile work environment claim)
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.) (burden-shifting for retaliation claims)
Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir.) (authentication requirements for evidence opposing summary judgment)
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court) (separate appeal required for post-judgment motions)
Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (forfeiture for failing to object to magistrate nondispositive orders)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (court will not consider issues raised first on appeal)