Juliet Arvakhi, an individual v. CRAIG CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIET ARVAKHI, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CRAIG CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary,
United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development, *
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56923
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02816-CAS-E
MEMORANDUM**
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).
FILED
FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56923
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 of 2 --