Julie Deese v. Wells Fargo Bank

Good Law
461 F. App'x 569
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 12, 201110-17296California565 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Julie Deese appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants in her Title VII sex discrimination action. The district court found that (1) Deese did not allege any discriminatory acts that occurred within the 800-day statute of limitations, and (2) the conduct by Reynolds and Wells Fargo did not rise to the outrageous and extreme level required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

1. The district court did not err in concluding that Deese’s sex discrimination claim was barred by the 300-day statute of limitations, because Deese did not present evidence that (A) discrete acts of disparate treatment or (B) acts contributing to a hostile work environment occurred during the applicable period.

A. With the exception of the November 2007 incident, Deese does not allege any discrete act of disparate treatment which occurred after April 27, 2007. With regard to the November 2007 incident, there is no evidence in this record that this act was based upon discrimination. Deese, in her deposition, testified that three other females had referred cases without…

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.