Vogel

MEMORANDUM ***

Ann Vogel appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (‘WalMart”). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court properly granted Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment because Vogel did not meet her preliminary evidentiary burden for establishing a retaliatory employment discrimination claim. She must show that (1) she engaged in an activity protected under Title VII; (2) her employer subjected her to an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer’s action. Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1994). Vogel tenders sufficient evidence to satisfy her burden on the first two elements because she had filed a workers’ compensation claim and was later terminated from her employment with Wal-Mart. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 23-15013(e)(iii) (retaliation claim exists if employer terminated employment “in retaliation for the exercise of rights under the worker’s compensation statutes”).

However, Vogel did not satisfy her evidentiary…