SANDIE CHU V. PATRICK DONAHOE, No. 14-16467 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 23 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANDIE P. CHU, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 14-16467 D.C. No. 4:12-cv-02660-YGR v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Sandie P. Chu appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging race and national origin discrimination in violation * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Chu’s Title VII race discrimination claim because Chu failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more favorably or whether defendant’s asserted non-discriminatory reason for involuntarily reassigning her was pretextual. See id. at 1155-56 (providing framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiff’s burden is not onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to pretext). AFFIRMED. 2 14-16467

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.