BETTYE WASHINGTON V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 10-56523 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BETTYE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-56523 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05622-DDP-SS v. MEMORANDUM * CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 28, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Bettye Washington appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in her employment action alleging race and disability discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). California s Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA ). 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), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Washington s race discrimination claim because Washington failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated individuals outside of her protected class were treated more favorably, and whether defendants legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for suspending and then discharging Washington were pretextual. See id. at 640 & n.5 (framework for analyzing disparate treatment discrimination claims). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Washington s disability discrimination claims because Washington failed to raise triable dispute as to whether she was subjected to adverse employment actions because of her alleged disability, and whether defendants legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for suspending and then discharging Washington were pretextual. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2001) (framework for analyzing a disability discrimination claim under the ADA); Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA); Faust v. Cal. Portland Cement Co., 58 Cal. Rptr. 2 10-56523 3d 729, 745 (Ct. App. 2007) (framework for analyzing a disability discrimination claim under the FEHA). The district properly granted summary judgment on Washington s retaliation claims because Washington failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for suspending and then discharging Washington were pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (for retaliation claims under Title VII and the FEHA, circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial). Washington s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 3 10-56523

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.