Foster
Foster v. Nevada
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Judith Foster (“Foster”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, the State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (“DMV”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we have jurisdiction over Foster’s timely appeal, and we affirm the district court’s decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1997). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Foster, we must determine whether there exist any genuine issues of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A mere “scintilla of evidence” will not suffice to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, id. at 252 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; rather, Foster must introduce “significant probative evidence” supporting her complaint. Id. at 249 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290 , 88 S.Ct. 1575 , 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).