Pauline Horvath v. Donald Winter
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Pauline M. Horvath appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Horvath failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether her promotion denials were causally connected to her filing of an informal complaint of discrimination. See Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.2003) (no causal connection due to a lack of evidence showing that the decisionmakers were aware of the plaintiffs complaints); see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir.2002) (eighteen-month lapse between protected activity and an adverse employment action is too long to give rise to an inference of causation).
We do not consider Horvath’s request for class certification because she did not file a motion for class certification before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).