Beverly Mulvihill v. Pacific Maritime Assn

Good Law
587 F. App'x 422
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 201413-35208California454 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Beverly Mulvihill brings a gender and age discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) against her employer, Pacific Maritime Association (“PMA”), and her union, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19 (“Union”). We review both the district court’s grant of summary judgment and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. See Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.2008); Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mulvihill’s Title VII and ADEA claims arising before November 2009 as time-barred because they fell outside of the 300-day statutory period triggered by filing charges with the EEOC. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 118 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). Similarly, the district court properly denied Mulvihill’s WLAD claims that occurred prior to March 2007 as falling outside of the state law statute of limitations period. See Antonius v. King Cnty., 153…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.