NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRI BROOKS-JOSEPH, No. 24-2735 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-01078-RSL v.

MEMORANDUM*

CITY OF SEATTLE; LOURDES

PODWALL; SUSAN DAVIDSON; BRITT

LUZZI; SHARON HUNTER; SEATTLE

CITY LIGHT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Terri Brooks-Joseph appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her action alleging federal and state claims of employment

* 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). discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, wrongful discharge, and negligent

retention and supervision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Lui v. DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 776 (9th Cir. 2025). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brooks-Joseph’s

employment discrimination claims because Brooks-Joseph failed to establish a

prima facie case under the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See id. at 802 (setting forth

requirements of a prima facie case).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brooks-Joseph’s

whistleblower retaliation claims because Brooks-Joseph failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether she is a state employee for purposes of state

law or whether she filed a written complaint for purposes of the local municipal

code. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 42.40.020(2), 42.40.050(1)(a) (Washington

Whistleblower Protection Act, applying to state employees); Wash. Rev. Code

§ 42.41.050 (granting local governments the authority to promulgate their own

whistleblower-protection processes); Seattle Municipal Code §§ 4.20.860,

4.20.870 (requiring a local government employee alleging whistleblower

retaliation to file a written complaint within 180 days with the Executive Director

of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission).

Brooks-Joseph’s contention that the district court suppressed and

2 24-2735 disregarded evidence is unsupported by the record.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2735