Glass
Glass v. Wells Fargo Bank
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Cynthia Glass appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without leave to amend her action alleging race and religion discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim, and may affirm on any ground fairly supported by the record. See Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989).
Because Glass failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim that defendant’s actions were based on race and religion, the district court did not err by dismissing her discrimination claims. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994).
Because Glass failed to claim facts sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter her working environment or rise to the level of illegal discrimination, the district court did not err by dismissing her hostile work environment claims. See Woods v. Graphic Communications, 925 F.2d 1195, 1200-02 (9th Cir.1991).
Because Glass failed to allege extreme and outrageous conduct, the district court properly dismissed her…