Anita Aranda v. Renown South Meadows Medical Center

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANITA ARANDA and GINA BROCK, No. 11-16894

Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00660-RCJ-

RAM

v.

RENOWN SOUTH MEADOWS MEMORANDUM*

MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 18, 2013 San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,** District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Anita Aranda and Gina Brock, appeal from the district court’s

order granting summary judgment on their claims of national origin discrimination

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

et seq., against Renown South…

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs, Anita Aranda and Gina Brock, appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment on their claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., against Renown South Meadows Medical Center (Renown). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm.

Even if plaintiffs established a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the burden-shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), they failed to show that Renown’s proffered “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for terminating them— sleeping on duty — was a “pretext for unlawful discrimination.” Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiffs aver that their direct supervisor expressed anti-Filipino animus. But the record shows that the director of human resources (who expressed no such bias) left the supervisor with virtually no choice but to terminate plaintiffs because of several reports of them…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join the the majority’s conclusion that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ retaliation claim, but I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that plaintiffs’ national origin discrimination claim fails.

Although the director of human resources instructed the supervisor to terminate plaintiffs, the immediate impetus for the director’s instruction was an email *677 from the supervisor describing plaintiffs’ conduct and noting that it amounted to “a termination offence.” And about one hour prior to sending the email that led to plaintiffs’ termination, the supervisor had allegedly said that he “hate[d] F’ing ... Filipinos” and was “sick and tired of Filipinos.”

In my view, a reasonable factfinder could find that the supervisor “influenced or participated in the decisionmaking process” by sending the email, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonable factfinder could find that the supervisor’s “animus affected the employment decision.” Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Tramp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005); see also Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th…