FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YVONNE LERAMO, No. 11-16860
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-02083-LJO-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
PREMIER ANESTHESIA MEDICAL
GROUP, a California General Partnership;
KAMALNATH IYER; W. BRUCE
SCURLOCK; KAIL DHALIWAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, District Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior United States District Judge for
the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Yvonne Leramo sued Premier Anesthesia Medical Group and three
of its partners, alleging workplace discrimination. Leramo appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Leramo’s
disparate treatment claims. After the defendants articulated legitimate non-
discriminatory reasons – poor performance and staffing difficulties – for reducing
Leramo’s hours and eventually refusing to renew her contract, Leramo failed to
present evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that these proffered
reasons were pretext for discrimination. Leramo’s sole argument is that pretext is
always a question for the jury. This argument is without merit. See, e.g., Bodett v.
CoxCom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment
on disparate treatment claim where plaintiff failed to come forward with any
evidence of pretext). Leramo has presented no evidence, beyond her possible
minimal qualifications for the job, that would show that the defendants’ proffered
reasons for the employment actions are not worthy of credence or that would
otherwise raise an inference of discrimination. She casts aspersions on the
defendants’ evidence of her poor performance, but the defendants’ evidence is
admissible, credible and uncontroverted.
2
2. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Leramo’s
retaliation claims. Contemporaneous documents prove that the decision to remove
Leramo from obstetrics calls that resulted in her hours being reduced was made
before her co-worker made the offensive comment. The defendants opted not to
renew Leramo’s contract more than a year (14 months) after she complained about
the comment. When temporal proximity is the only evidence of a causal nexus
between protected activity and an adverse employment action, the proximity must
be much closer to create the inference. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532
U.S. 268, 273 (2001) (per curiam) (citing with approval Seventh and Tenth Circuit
cases holding that 3- and 4-month periods were insufficient to create an inference
of a causal nexus); Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2003)
(holding that a 9-month lapse between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the
defendant’s alleged adverse decision was too large to create an inference of a
causal nexus).
3. Because Leramo has failed to create triable issues of fact on her
discrimination claims, we need not decide the other issues raised in her appeal,
such as whether she was an employee or independent contractor of Premier
Anesthesia Medical Group.
AFFIRMED.
3