Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., a Washington Corporation

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 783·301 F.3d 958·2002 WL 84237·87 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1452·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 587
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 23, 200299-35668California5,140 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thomas, J.

ORDER

The opinion filed on September 12, 2001, is hereby amended. With the amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. RApp. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

OPINION

Maureen Little (“Little”) appeals from an order granting summary judgment on her claims of hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and wrongful discharge in violation of Washington state law. Because genuine issues of material fact exist on these claims, we reverse the judgment of the district court. We affirm the dismissal of her state law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

I

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must in evaluating the propriety of a grant of summary judgment, see Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir.1991), the events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows:

Little was employed by Windermere…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.