FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIA WONG, No. 11-35839
Plaintiff - Appellant, D. C. No. 2:10-cv-00180-JCC
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Lucia Wong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her diversity action alleging unlawful termination based on race or ancestry in
violation of Washington state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo, Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir.
2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wong failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was performing
satisfactorily for purposes of a prima facie case of discrimination and, in any event,
whether Wells Fargo’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her
was pretextual. See Milligan v. Thompson, 42 P.3d 418, 423 (Wash. Ct. App.
2002) (stating elements for a prima facie case of discrimination and explaining
burden shifting framework); see also Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d
1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2001) (unsupported subjective statement about defendant’s
motive is insufficient to defeat summary judgment); F.T.C. v. Publ’g Clearing
House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (conclusory, self-serving
affidavit lacking detailed facts and supporting evidence insufficient to create
dispute of material fact).
Contrary to Wong’s contention on appeal, Wells Fargo’s belief that Wong
violated federal regulations constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
terminating her, even if Wong did not actually violate federal regulations. See
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[C]ourts
only require that an employer honestly believed its reason for its actions, even if its
2 11-35839
reason is foolish or trivial or even baseless.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35839