621 Fed.Appx. 391 (9th Cir. 2015), 13-17670, Sherrill v. Pritzker

Docket Nº:13-17670
Citation:621 Fed.Appx. 391
Party Name:BARBARA ELLEN SHERRILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, [*] Defendant - Appellee
Attorney:Barbara Ellen Sherrill, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Tucson, AZ. For REBECCA M. BLANK, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee: Angela Walker Woolridge, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU- Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ.
Judge Panel:Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 22, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 391

621 Fed.Appx. 391 (9th Cir. 2015)

BARBARA ELLEN SHERRILL, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, [*] Defendant - Appellee

No. 13-17670

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 22, 2015

Submitted October 14, 2015 [***]

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00266-RCC. Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding.

AFFIRMED.

Barbara Ellen Sherrill, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Tucson, AZ.

For REBECCA M. BLANK, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee: Angela Walker Woolridge, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU- Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ.

Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Barbara Ellen Sherrill, a former federal employee, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of Title VII and the Whistleblower Protection Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v.

Page 392

ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sherrill's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims because Sherrill failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant discriminated against her because of her sex or retaliated against her for any protected conduct. See Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (" [I]n order for harassment to be actionable [under Title VII] it has to be a type of discrimination 'because of' race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." ); Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 1988) (" [T]he opposed conduct must fairly fall within the protection of Title VII to sustain a claim of unlawful retaliation" ).

Dismissal of Sherrill's Whistleblower Protection Act claim...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP