Georgette Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, No. 20-15023
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 4:18-cv-01402-PJH
4:18-cv-01404-PJH
v.
RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN, INC.; MEMORANDUM*
SERVICE WEST, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Georgette G. Purnell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Am. Tower Corp. v. City
of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Purnell’s hostile
work environment claim because Purnell failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants failed to take adequate corrective action
once they had notice of Jones’s harassment. See Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184,
1191-92 (9th Cir. 2001) (an employer cannot be held liable for hostile work
environment based on harassment by a co-worker if adequate corrective action is
implemented once it has notice of the harassment).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Purnell’s
discrimination and retaliation claims because Purnell failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
defendants’ actions were pretextual. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281
F.3d 1054, 1061-62, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (burden-shifting framework applies to
discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII; circumstantial evidence of
pretext must be specific and substantial).
Purnell’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 2) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15023