Brock

MEMORANDUM

Debra Brock (“Brock”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her gender discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in favor of her employer, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., and four of Pepsi’s managerial employees, Marc Marcelli, Mike Salzburg, Nancy Hebert, and Pat Devlin (collectively “Pepsi”). Brock based her claims on several incidents in which Pepsi disciplined her or did not promote her. We affirm.

Brock argues that the district court’s decision must be overturned because that court applied the wrong standard regarding Brock’s burden of proof on her discrimination and retaliation claims. In particular, Brock argues that the district court wrongly required circumstantial pretext evidence to be “substantial” as mandated by us in Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998), instead of requiring such evidence to be “sufficient” as mandated subsequently by the Supreme Court in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). We do not have to reach the issue whether Reeves set a new standard for circumstantial pretext evidence because…