DEBRA JOHNSON V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, No. 11-16527 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 22 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEBRA TAYLOR JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-16527 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05157-RS v. MEMORANDUM * CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 11, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Appellant Debra Taylor Johnson appeals the district court s entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, the City of Oakland ( City ), in her employment action alleging racial and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. Cnty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and affirm. The district court determined that Johnson established a prima facie case of discrimination and properly granted summary judgment because Johnson failed to meet her burden of establishing that the City s decision denying her request for retroactive salary and cost of living allowance ( COLA ) increases was a pretext for discrimination. The City articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), for denying Johnson s request, viz., her position was established at a flat-rate salary by City Council ordinance and was not eligible for salary increases, and Johnson had already received COLA increases that were approved by the City Council. Johnson has not persuaded us that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the City or shown that the City s explanation is unworthy of credence, Tex. Dep t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). Indeed, Johnson has presented no specific and substantial circumstantial evidence showing pretext. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002). AFFIRMED. 2

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.