Usher

MEMORANDUM **

Brenda Usher appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County of Sacramento (the “County”) on Usher’s claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e — 2000e-17 (2003). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

Usher may show that she was the victim of unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation either by direct evidence, or by providing circumstantial evidence under the familiar burden-shifting procedure of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir.2002) (discrimination); Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir.2000) (retaliation). The burden-shifting analysis is viewed “in light of the traditional summary judgment test” and the nonmoving party must “produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine factual issue for trial.” Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727 , 731 (9th Cir.1986) (quotation…