Tashia Channel v. DENIS McDONOUGH, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TASHIA CHANNEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DENIS McDONOUGH, Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16211
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02414-MCE-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Tashia Channel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging various claims concerning her federal employment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dougherty v. City of
Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim);
* 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
NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16211
Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Channel’s claims of discrimination,
retaliation, and constructive discharge because Channel failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547, 555
(2016) (constructive discharge doctrine contemplates a situation in which working
conditions have become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s
position would feel compelled to resign); Univ. of Tex Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar,
570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013) (requirements of a retaliation claim under Title VII);
Sheppard v. David Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements
of a prima facie case of discrimination under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act); Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir.
2007) (elements of a prima facie claim of disability discrimination under the
Rehabilitation Act).
The district court properly determined that Channel failed to exhaust
administrative remedies on her claim concerning reasonable accommodation for
her disability. See Leong, 347 F.3d at 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion of
administrative remedies is required for Rehabilitation Act claims and ordinarily the
“specific claims” made in the district court must have been presented to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission). Contrary to Channel’s contention that the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16211
defense was waived, the defense was raised in a motion to dismiss.
We reject as without merit Channel’s contention that the district court was
required to hold an additional hearing prior to dismissing the action.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal
or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --