Fran Simontacchi v. Department of Public Safety;

* 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. Wolle, Senior United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRAN SIMONTACCHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15858
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00407-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 4, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and WOLLE, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history,
we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision.
2
Ms. Fran Simontacchi appeals from a grant of summary judgment against
her on her claims that Nevada denied her equal protection of the law and retaliated
against her for protected speech when it denied her certain compensation, “4800
time,” for days on which she could only work part time. 1 We affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment.
To the extent that Simontacchi claims a denial of equal protection on the
basis that Nevada denied her 4800 time as an employee of its Parole and Probation
Division while allowing for 4800 time for officers of the Highway Patrol, Nevada
offered a rational basis for its differentiation between the employees of the
divisions. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993).
To the extent that Simontacchi claims a denial of equal protection on the
basis of gender discrimination, she failed to present any evidence of differential
treatment based on gender.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment against
Simontacchi on her First Amendment claim. Simontacchi’s speech concerned only
her claim to 4800 time. Accordingly, it is doubtful that it touched on a matter of
public concern, and it probably was not protected speech. See Coszalter v. City of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003). In any case, there is nothing in the
record to support Simontacchi’s assertion that Nevada denied her 4800 time in
retaliation for her speech.
The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nevada and
against Simontacchi is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --