Courtney Flynn v. Sephora USA, Inc.

facts would be inadmissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).

4. Flynn’s claim of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 fails as a matter of law. Assuming (without

3 We construe Flynn’s argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) as one under Rule 56(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) advisory comm. note to the 2010 amendment (noting that Rule 56(d) was revised to include “without substantial change the provisions of former subdivision (f)”).

3 deciding) that the Accelerate Program falls within the protections of Title VII,

Flynn has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination either by using the

framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973),

or by producing “direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a

discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated” Sephora. Opara v. Yellen,

57 F.4th 709, 721–22 (9th Cir. 2023) (footnote and citation omitted). There is no

evidence that Flynn’s company, which provides a “Supply Chain solution” using

Software as a Service, was qualified for the “Skin” merchandise category of the

2021 Accelerate Program, to which she indisputably applied.…