NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARET ANN HAUGHTON, No. 16-35674
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00888-HZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster
General, US Postal Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Margaret Ann Haughton appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her Title VII action alleging a retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,
349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Haughton’s
retaliatory hostile work environment claim because Haughton failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was subjected to conduct that
was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. See
Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (“To determine
whether an environment is sufficiently hostile, we look to the totality of the
circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity;
whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance;
and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35674