Intel

MEMORANDUM

Madhavi Pullela appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Intel Corporation on her wrongful discharge claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we restate them here only as necessary to explain our decision.

Pullela presents two issues on appeal. First, she argues the district court erred when it concluded that she did not believe, in good faith, that she was reporting sexual discrimination when she reported her co-worker’s flirtatious behavior and preferential treatment. Second, Pullela contends the district court erred when it concluded that she had failed to establish a causal connection between her complaint and her discharge. We review both of these claims de novo. Degelmann v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc., 659 F.3d 835, 839 (9th Cir. 2011).

I.

Under Oregon law, a plaintiff is wrongfully discharged if she is fired or constructively discharged for (1) fulfilling an important public or societal obligation or (2) for exercising an employment-related right of important public interest. Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 346 Or. 628 , 216 P.3d 852, 856…