Weltha Jones-Rankins v. Cardinal Health Incorporated

MEMORANDUM

Weltha J. Jones-Rankins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, although Rankins established a prima facie case of retaliation based on circumstantial evidence, she failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its decision to transfer her out of the state was merely pretextual. See id. at 1108 (discussing elements and burden-shifting framework of Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims); Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir.1995) (employee must produce “ ‘specific, substantial evidence of pretext’ in order to avoid summary judgment” on discrimination and retaliation claims (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rankins’s motion for reconsideration because Rankins failed to establish grounds for such relief. See D.…