Julie Joki v. Rogue Community College

MEMORANDUM *

Julie Joki appeals from the district court’s grant of Defendants-Appellees’ motions for summary judgment on her claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Both parties agree that the district court accurately calculated the relevant statutes of limitations for Joki’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Oregon state law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . In applying these limitations periods, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s holding that “discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges,” while “a hostile work environment claim ... will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 102, 122 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d *681 106 (2002) (addressing Title VII claims); see also Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 344 F.3d 822 , 829 (9th Cir.2003) (applying Morgan…

dissenting:

I agree with the majority that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Joki’s Title VII and state law claims. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there is a triable issue of fact regarding Joki’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 equal protection claim.

It is true that a hostile work environment claim is not time-barred “so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the [statute of limitations].” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). The Supreme Court has explained that each act contributing to such a claim must be “part" of the whole,” and if the only act within filing period has “no relation” to the time-barred conduct or is otherwise “no longer part of the same hostile environment claim,” the employee cannot recover for the previous acts. Id. at 118 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 . That is the situation here.

There is no evidence, nor even any inference to be raised, that Underwood’s snub of Joki or Carlile’s gesture towards her contributed to a hostile work environment, because there is simply no…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 29 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JULIE M. JOKI, No. 12-35413

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00849-PA

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ROGUE COMMUNITY COLLEGE; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2013 Portland, Oregon

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Julie Joki appeals from the district court’s grant of Defendants-Appellees’

motions for summary judgment on her claims of gender discrimination and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. -2- retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in

part and reverse and remand in part.

Both parties agree that the district court accurately calculated the relevant

statutes of limitations for Joki’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

U.S.C. §…