Amy Coburn v. Pn II, Inc.

Good Law
372 F. App'x 796
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 31, 201009-15837California2,398 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Amy Coburn was Area Vice President for Product Development for Defendant-Appellee PN II, Inc., the Nevada Area operations of Pulte Homes, Inc., a Michigan homebuilding corporation (collectively, “Pulte”). After Co-burn was terminated, she sued Pulte for: (1) unlawful sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and Nevada Revised Statute § 613.330; and (2) unlawful retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and Nevada Revised Statute § 613.340. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pulte with respect to Coburn’s discrimination and retaliation claims, and Coburn now appeals both of these decisions. We review these determinations de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Coburn in order to decide whether Coburn has established a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir.2005). We reverse.

I

We apply a system of shifting burdens in discrimination cases. “The plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case.” Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement and Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2001). If the plaintiff meets this…

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.