Vannessa Luu v. Hewlett-Packard Co

MEMORANDUM

Vannessa Luu appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Hewlett-Packard Company on her California and federal law retaliation claims. We affirm.

Reviewing de novo, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000), we conclude that the evidence presented to the district court was sufficient to establish “a causal link between” her protected activities and her termination. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir.2000). Under both federal and California law, a prima facie case can be established by “circumstantial evidence, such as the employer’s knowledge that the [employee] engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision.” Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1376 (9th Cir.1988) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69-70 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652 (2000).

Luu’s declaration states that she lodged complaints with her supervisors about gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and accounting irregularities shortly before Hewlett-Packard terminated her…