Dannenbring v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 032816 FED9, 14-15443
|Party Name:||GINA DANNENBRING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN, Senior District Judge.|
|Case Date:||March 28, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 15, 2016 [**]San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-0007-JCM
Gina Dannenbring appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Wynn Las Vegas on her claims of pregnancy discrimination under Title VII, retaliation under Title VII, and failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, we affirm. Webster v. Pub. Sch. Employees of Washington, Inc., 247 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 2001).
1. Dannenbring has failed to show that the Wynn's articulated explanation for her termination was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination. "Where the evidence of pretext is circumstantial, rather than direct, the plaintiff must present 'specific' and 'substantial' facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998)). The Wynn explains that Dannenbring's termination resulted from an incident in which Dannenbring stored confidential client information on her personal computer and thereby allowed her ex-boyfriend to access it, in violation of the Wynn's confidentiality and non-disclosure policies. Dannenbring's argument that this incident was an unfair reason for her termination, in light of the wrongful nature of her ex-boyfriend's conduct, does not create a factual question about the truth of the Wynn's reason for terminating Dannenbring. And Dannenbring's allegation that the Wynn imperfectly enforced those policies was not proved, and was properly rejected by the district court.
2. Dannenbring cannot establish a prima facie case on her retaliation claim because she cannot show any causal link between protected activity – her discrimination charge against the Wynn filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) on April 10, 2011 – and any adverse employment...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP