Lorraine Manatt v. State of Nevada, ex rel its Department of Business

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORRAINE MANATT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel its
Department of Business and Industry,
Division of Industrial Relations,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16668
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00505-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges and BREYER,*** District
Judge.
FILED
FEB 25 2016
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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Lorraine Manatt, a former industrial hygienist with the Nevada Department of
Business and Industry (the “Department”), appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Department on Manatt’s retaliation claim brought
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a).
We agree with the district court that Manatt failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact on whether the “adverse employment actions” taken by the Department
were motivated by Manatt reporting a racist video that another employee had shown
at her workplace. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000). Even
assuming Manatt had made a prima facie case of retaliation, she also failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact on whether the reasons offered by the Department for
its actions were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Steiner v. Showboat
Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464–65 (9th Cir. 1994). The district court thus
properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Department on Manatt’s Title VII
retaliation claim.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --