Bettye Washington v. City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Police Department

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BETTYE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56523
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05622-DDP-SS
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-56523 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, non-
retaliatory 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 of 3 --

10-56523 3
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 of 3 --