Rust

Rust v. TMC Healthcare

Good Law
88 F. App'x 219
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 2004No. 03-16116; D.C. No. CV-01-00432-CKJCalifornia266 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jan Rust appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment dismissing her retaliation action against Tucson Medical Center Healthcare (“TMC”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly held that Rust failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. See Manatt v. Bank of America, NA, 339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Rust established participation in the protected activity of filing an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint against her former employer, see Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 , 1240 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000), and that she suffered an adverse employment decision when TMC refused to hire her, see Ruggles v. California Polytechnic State Univ., 797 F.2d 782, 786 (9th Cir.1986), she failed to establish a causal link in that she failed to raise a genuine issue that TMC knew that she had filed an EEO complaint when it did not hire her. See Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.2003).

Even if Rust had established a prima facie case of retaliation, she failed to show *220…

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.