FILED
+CORRECTED JULY 16, 2013 JUL 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIANA D. MENDEZ, No. 11-56938
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04494-VBF-RNB
v. MEMORANDUM**
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,* Postmaster
General, United States Postal Services
(Pacific Area),
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2013***
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
+Patrick R. Donahoe, is substituted for his predecessor, John E.
Potter, as Postmaster General of the United States. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
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).
Diana Mendez (Mendez) appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Patrick R. Donahoe.
The district court correctly determined that Mendez failed to raise a material
issue of fact on her disparate treatment claim or on her retaliation claim. As the
district court noted, Mendez failed to identify any similarly situated employee who
engaged in a pattern of similar insubordinate conduct and was not terminated. See
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002)
(articulating the standard for reviewing the grant of summary judgment on a
discrimination claim). She also failed to establish a causal link between the
protected activity of filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the adverse action. See Hardage v. CBS Broad., Inc., 427 F.3d
1177, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2005). Even if Mendez had established a prima facie case
on either claim, she failed to establish that the stated reasons for her termination
were pretextual. See Villiarimo, 281 F.3d at 1062-63.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mendez, we conclude
that the district court properly granted summary judgment. Mendez repeatedly
failed to report to her assigned work area, continually filed leave requests for days
she was scheduled to work, attempted to work the days she was not scheduled,
2
defied her supervisor’s direct order to report to her new work station, and refused
to participate in the investigative interviews, even after receiving warnings that
participation was required. See Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC., 704 F.3d 1235,
1244 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming the grant of summary judgment on discrimination
and retaliation claims).
AFFIRMED.
3