Berry
Berry v. Chevron USA, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiffs Barbara Berry, Sheila Nixon Smith, and Doris Clark appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants (collectively, “Chevron”). The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1367, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Lindahl v. Air France, 930 F.2d 1434, 1436 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we need not recount it here.
I
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(2) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900. Because California law under the FEHA mirrors federal law under Title VII, federal cases are instructive and will be relied upon to determine the merits of the discrimination action. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir.1998).
Because Chevron has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring Plaintiffs, they must…