Isabella Nunes-Baptista v. Wfm Hawaii , 585 F. App'x 611 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 30 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ISABELLA NUNES-BAPTISTA,                          No. 12-16268
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:11 CV-0104 LEK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WFM HAWAII, LLC, DBA Whole Foods
    Market; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted October 8, 2014
    University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Before:        TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant Nunes-Baptista appeals from the district court’s summary
    judgment in favor of WFM on her claims of sex discrimination under Title VII of
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and intentional infliction of emotional
    distress (“IIED”) under Hawaii law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
    and we affirm.
    We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Vasquez
    v. Cnty. of L.A., 
    349 F.3d 634
    , 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We “must determine whether,
    viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are
    any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied
    the relevant substantive law.” Lopez v. Smith, 
    203 F.3d 1122
    , 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)
    (en banc) (citation omitted).
    1.     The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nunes-
    Baptista’s sex discrimination claims because Nunes-Baptista failed to raise a
    genuine issue of material fact as to whether her pregnancy was a motivating factor
    in WFM’s decision to terminate her. The comments made by Nunes-Baptista’s
    supervisor are “stray remarks . . . insufficient to establish discrimination.” Merrick
    v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 
    892 F.2d 1434
    , 1438 (9th Cir. 1990). As a result, Nunes-
    Baptista is unable to present sufficient evidence that WFM’s legitimate, non-
    discriminatory justification for terminating Nunes-Baptista is pretextual.
    2.     The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nunes-
    Baptista’s IIED claim because Nunes-Baptista did not present evidence sufficient
    2
    to find that WFM’s actions were “outrageous,” as required under Hawaii state law.
    See Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai’i) Ltd., 
    879 P.2d 1037
    , 1048 & n.12
    (Haw.1994).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-16268

Citation Numbers: 585 F. App'x 611

Filed Date: 10/30/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023