Anne Johnston v. Patrick Donahoe
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Anne Johnston appeals the district court’s dismissal of her unlawful termination claim against Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe. Specifically, she argues that the district court on summary judgment erred in failing to consider whether she had been terminated for activity protected under the participation clause of Title VII. We may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950, 956 (9th Cir.2009), and we do so here.
Even assuming that Johnston raised sufficient arguments under the participation clause such that the district court should have ruled on the issue, and even assuming that Johnston established a prima facie case of retaliatory termination at the first step of the three-step, burden-shifting test from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), summary judgment was nonetheless properly granted because Johnston failed to demonstrate that the nonretaliatory reasons offered by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) for her termination were pretextual.