Amerititle

MEMORANDUM

Ruth Ann Cheesman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and related state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cheesman’s discrimination and retaliation claims because Cheesman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether AmeriTitle’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Cheesman was pretextual. See id. at 640-42 (circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial); see also Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270-71 (9th Cir.1996) (“[Wjhere the same actor is responsible for both the hiring and the firing of a discrimination plaintiff, and both actions occur within a short period of time, a strong inference arises that there was no discriminatory motive.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cheesman’s harassment claim because Cheesman failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether…