Zastera

MEMORANDUM **

I

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Carol A. Zastera appeals from a summary judgment dismissing the claims she asserted against her former employer, the Department of the Army (“Army”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We review this judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to Zastera. See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.2003); Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Assocs., Ltd., 338 F.3d 981, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Zastera failed to present a triable issue of material fact regarding any of her claims, we affirm the judgment. We hold that this decision moots the Army’s two motions to strike portions of Zastera’s Excerpts of Record.

II

DISCUSSION

The employment actions on which Zastera bases her claims can be divided into *605 three categories; to wit, 1) the hiring process, regarding a position she desired but for which she was not selected in early 1993, 2) her termination, which occurred later in 1993, and 3) the alleged refusal to reinstate her thereafter.

A. Claims Regarding the Hiring Process were Untimely

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) notified Zastera in March 1995…