Yvonne Hodge v. Oakland Unified School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YVONNE HODGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT; BOARD OF EDUCATION;
KIM NOBLE; LISA RYAN COLE;
PHYLISS HARRIS; IRIS WESSLEMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16427
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04719-RS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District
Judge.**
FILED
FEB 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable William K. Sessions III, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
1

-- 1 of 3 --

Yvonne Hodge appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
Defendants on her claims of disparate treatment, disparate impact, and hostile work
environment on account of her race and age under Title VII and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. We review de novo a district court’s grant of
summary judgment and affirm. Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634,
639 (9th Cir. 2003).
With respect to Hodge’s disparate treatment claim, the district court
correctly held at step three of the McDonnell Douglas framework that Hodge did
not present evidence that the school district’s reason for not hiring her was
pretextual. See Raad v. Fairbanks North Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185,
1193–94 (9th Cir. 2003). With respect to her disparate impact claim, Hodge did
not introduce sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact of
disparate impact, including any evidence from which to compare the number of
teachers within the protected groups who were hired to the number in the applicant
pool or in any other relevant group. See Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th
Cir. 2002). Finally, with respect to hostile work environment, Hodge did not
present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact that the alleged
mistreatment was because of her race or age. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d
792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Hodge’s remaining claims are either waived or without merit.
The district court is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --