Kirsha Brown-Younger v. Precision Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Kirsha Brown-Younger appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown-Younger’s disability discrimination claim because Brown-Younger failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she suffers from a disability and whether she was subjected to an adverse employment action because of her alleged disability. See Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.1999) (discussing the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA); see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir.2007) (“Because [Plaintiff] failed to present any evidence in opposition to Ap-pellees’ motion for summary judgment, she has failed to demonstrate that there are any genuine issues of material facts in dispute.”).