JULIET ARVAKHI V. JULIAN CASTRO, No. 15-56923 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIET ARVAKHI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-56923 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02816-CAS-E MEMORANDUM** CRAIG CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, * Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017*** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Juliet Arvakhi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in * Craig Clemmensen has been substituted for his predecessor, Julian Castro, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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). her Title VII action alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi’s hostile work environment claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi’s retaliation claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she suffered an adverse action as a result of engaging in protected activity. See Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 646 (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim). AFFIRMED. 2 15-56923

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.