FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 01 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LATONYA L. KEYS, No. 14-17004
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02549-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ULTA SALON, COSMETICS &
FRAGRANCE, INCORPORATED, an
Arizona limited liability company,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 20, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge.
Latonya L. Keys (“Keys”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (“ULTA”). We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
judgment de novo, construing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party. Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011).
1. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the disparate
treatment claim. Keys failed to establish a prima facie disparate treatment claim
because she did not provide evidence that employees similarly situated to her “in
all material respects” were treated more favorably. Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748,
755 (9th Cir. 2006).
2. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the retaliation
claims. Keys failed to establish a prima facie retaliation claim because she did not
provide evidence that she engaged in protected activity, as none of her complaints
were a protest of discrimination “protected by Title VII.” Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d
982, 984–85 (9th Cir. 1994); see Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912,
919 (9th Cir. 1996).
3. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the hostile
work environment claim. Keys failed to establish a prima facie hostile work
environment claim because she did not provide evidence of conduct “sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an
abusive work environment.” Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642
2
(9th Cir. 2003) (as amended).
AFFIRMED.
3