Mila B. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15798
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 19, 2017
691 F. App‘x 486
Before: BEA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI, District Judge.
Submitted June 8, 2017 Pasadena, California. Filed June 19, 2017. Richard Moreno Martinez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Richard M. Martinez, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Paul A. Bullis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Paul A. Bullis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: BEA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,** District Judge.
Mila Washington asked the United States Postal Service (USPS) to shorten her work day during her pregnancy, but still pay her for a full day. USPS initially allowed Washington to take personal absence time for hours not worked, but later reclassified this time off as unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. That reclassification required Washington to use her accumulated paid leave hours to receive pay for the unworked hours. In this suit, Washington alleges gender and pregnancy discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1
The district court granted USPS’s motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction of Washington’s appeal under
1. Washington claims that USPS improperly denied her 4.61 hours of personal absence time and reclassified 99.03 hours of personal absence time as FMLA sick leave. But, under USPS’s personal absence time policy, USPS managers are permitted to require the use of ... sick leave in the case of partial-day absences for FMLA-covered conditions, which includes absences caused by pregnancy complications. Therefore, USPS’s denial and reclassification of personal absence time do not by themselves prove[ ] the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption. Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration incorporated).
Nor did Washington offer evidence that gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Hawn v. Exec. Jet. Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration incorporated). She failed to show that similarly situated non-pregnant employees were treated more favorably in the provision of personal absence time, or that any other circumstances surrounding USPS’s denial and reclassification of personal absence time, which were allowed under USPS policy, permit an inference of discrimination. Id. at 1156 (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. Washington claims that USPS denied her call-in request for 8 hours of paid sick leave. But, she provided no direct evidence of discrimination, nor does she identify any similarly situated, non-pregnant employees who called in for sick leave and received it, or describe circumstances from which one could infer discrimination. See id.
3. Washington claims that USPS improperly revoked its original accommodation which allowed her to work less than 8 hours a day. But it is undisputed that Washington worked less than 8 hours daily from April 11 to August 23, 2012, was paid
4. Washington claims that USPS subjected her to an investigation for requesting a pregnancy accommodation. The investigation did not materially affect the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of [Washington‘s] employment and thus did not constitute an adverse employment action. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000). And, Washington provided no evidence that the investigation, which was initiated because of suspected timekeeping fraud, was discriminatory.
AFFIRMED.
Jesse KALBERER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17220
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 19, 2017
691 F. App‘x 488
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, District Judge.
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2017 San Francisco, California. Filed June 19, 2017. Dennis M. Prince, Attorney, Eglet Prince, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Scott Allen Flinders, Esquire, Attorney, Todd Wilson Prall, Esquire, Attorney, Michael K. Wall, Managing Senior Counsel, Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Scott Allen Flinders, Esquire, Attorney, Todd Wilson Prall, Esquire, Attorney, Michael K. Wall, Managing Senior Counsel, Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,* District Judge.
MEMORANDUM**
Plaintiff-Appellant Jesse Kalberer appeals the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee American Family Mutual Insurance Company and the district court‘s denial of relief requested pursuant to
We review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo. Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm if the record shows that there are no genuine disputes as to any material facts and that the movant is entitled to judgment under the applicable substantive state law. See
First, Kalberer argues that he presented sufficient evidence to generate a genu-