Ardeana Ellis v. Glaxo Smith Kline

MEMORANDUM

Ardeana Q. Ellis appeals pro se from two related judgments in her actions against her former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo, and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper in Ellis’s first action, appeal No. 08-35657, because she failed to raise a triable issue of race, gender, or age discrimination as to either of the claims she raises on appeal.

Specifically, summary judgment was proper on the Title VII retaliation claim because Ellis did not oppose conduct that was prohibited by Title VIL See Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 932 (9th Cir.1988) (“[T]he opposed conduct must fairly fall within the protection of Title VII to sustain a claim of unlawful retaliation.”).

Summary judgment was also proper on the “grant writing” disparate treatment claim because Ellis failed to raise a triable issue as to whether her computer problems were the result of defendant’s discriminatory animus. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 664 (9th Cir.2002) (affirming summary…