Carol Goos v. Shell Oil Company

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Carol Goos appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee Shell Oil Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because the evidence establishes that no reasonable juror could find in Goos’s favor on either of her remaining claims, we affirm the district court’s ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Martin v. Cal. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2009). Judgment as a matter of law is “properly granted only if no reasonable juror could find in the non-moving party’s favor.” Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir.2008) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Goos raises multiple challenges to the district court’s order. First, Goos argues that dismissal of the entire case was improper because her claims for discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination had not been resolved. But in opposing Shell’s summary judgment motion, Goos conceded that these claims were predicated entirely on the failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation claims. The retaliation claim was dismissed on…