Adcock

This appeal presents the question whether the contemplated car dealer franchise agreement at issue created an employment relationship so as to trigger the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994) (“Title VII”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”), ruling that it did not. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Appellant Sherrie Ann Adcock (“Adcock”) brought suit against Chrysler 1 under Title VII, alleging that Chrysler’s refusal to award her a dealership in Taft, California, was the result of sex discrimination. 2 The district court granted summary judgment for Chrysler, concluding that Title VII protections did not apply to this case because the contemplated dealer franchise agreement would *1292 have constituted a “continuing contract, not an employment relationship” subject to the statute. • We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998). Our review is governed by the same standard used by the trial court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). See Ghotra v. Bandila Shipping, Inc.,…