Kuespert

MEMORANDUM ***

Karen and Max Kuespert appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment against them in their Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and Family Medical and Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617 , action against Karen Kuespert’s former employer, Dillard’s Inc. 1 We affirm.

(1) Kuespert did not make a prima facie showing of discrimination on account of her pregnancy under Title VII because she did not show that similarly situated non-pregnant employees were treated more favorably. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, she did not present other direct evidence of discrimination. See Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 272 , 121 S.Ct. 1508, 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001); Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir.1998); Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton, 81 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir.1996); Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994). Furthermore, even if she did manage to spell out a bare bones pri-ma facie case, she also failed to present sufficient evidence to show that Dillard’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her — suspicion of theft — was pretextual. See…