FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA SOLVEIG BILLINGHAM, No. 08-35781
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00240-TMB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Solveig Billingham appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging sex and age discrimination and
retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
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).
Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Billingham’s
discrimination and retaliation claims because she failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more
favorably, see id. at 1124 (finding that the plaintiff’s “proposed comparators [we]re
not similarly situated because they were not subject to [a Last Chance
Agreement]”), and as to whether defendant’s reason for terminating her and
classifying her as ineligible for rehire was pretextual, see id. at 1124-25 (affirming
summary judgment where the plaintiff did not raise any genuine issues of material
fact as to whether the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
challenged employment action was pretextual); Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339
F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment on retaliation claim).
Moreover, Billingham failed to show a causal connection between her
administrative complaints and her termination and ineligibility for rehire. See
Manatt, 339 F.3d at 802.
We do not address issues that Billingham has not raised or argued on appeal.
See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008).
Billingham’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-35781