Heidi Hamilton v. Sears Roebuck and Company

Good Law
357 F. App'x 25
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 13, 200908-17353California758 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Heidi Hamilton (“Hamilton”) appeals the adverse summary judgment grant for both her Title VII sex discrimination and retaliatory termination claims against The Great Indoors (“TGI”), a division of Sears, Roebuck and Co., arguing genuine issues of material fact as to whether she established a prima facie case. She also appeals the district court’s order on her ERISA claim, in which the court found for her but declined to issue statutory penalties or her counsel’s costs and fees.

A.Gender Discrimination

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment and apply the same standard used by the district court. Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir.1995). “The court must not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matters asserted but only determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.1994).

Hamilton has failed to establish a material issue of fact as to discrimination. She has not alleged any statements or actions “prov[ing] the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption.” Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2005) (internal…

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.