NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHEIDA HUKMAN, No. 19-56090
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB
v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 7, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Sheida Hukman (“Hukman”) appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to defendant Southwest Airlines Company
(“Southwest”). We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Botosan v. Paul
McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 2000), and the court’s procedural and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp.,
866 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed all of Hukman’s Title VII claims because
she failed to file her complaint within ninety days of receiving her right-to-sue letter.
Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007).
Hukman received the letter from the EEOC in April 2017 but did not file her
complaint until November. We thus affirm the summary judgment grant on the first,
second, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action set forth in the complaint.
Alternatively, the district court properly granted summary judgment on these claims
because Hukman either failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or
failed to demonstrate that Southwest’s proffered reasons for terminating her within
her 180-day probationary hiring period were pretextual. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Hukman also alleged claims for retaliation in violation of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, failure to stop discrimination and harassment, and
wrongful termination in violation of California public policy. The court properly
granted summary judgment on Hukman’s retaliation claim because she did not
engage in any protected activity or complain of any discriminatory conduct prior to
her termination. Guthrey v. State of California, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1108, 1125 (1998)
(plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, was thereafter subject to
2
adverse employment action, and causal link between the two). Hukman’s state law
claim for failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and
harassment from occurring, Cal Gov’t Code § 12940(k), fails because she did not
establish any viable discrimination or harassment claims. See Trujillo v. N. Cnty.
Transit Dist., 63 Cal. App. 4th 280, 288–89 (1998). Finally, Hukman’s claim for
wrongful termination fails because no public policy violation occurred. See
DeHorney v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n, 879 F.2d 459, 465 (9th Cir. 1989)
(per curiam).
Hukman’s other assignments of error are also without merit. There is no
indication the district court failed or declined to review any relevant evidence in its
summary judgment decision. Having permitted Hukman to file two amendments to
her opposition to Southwest’s motion for summary judgment, the district court was
well within its discretion to permit Southwest to file a sur-reply, and likewise
properly denied her motion to strike. See Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1065. Hukman’s
contention that Southwest failed to provide all requested discovery is waived as it is
raised for the first time on appeal. In re Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., 754 F.3d 772, 780–
81 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting a
joint motion to continue the summary judgment hearing, as this motion was rendered
moot by the court’s determination that oral argument was not necessary. See Lake
3
at Las Vegas Inv’rs Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th
Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
4