Van Wagenen v. Ashcroft

MEMORANDUM *

Madeline Van Wagenen appeals the district court’s grant of judgment against her after a bench trial. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will not recount them here.

In our initial consideration of this case, we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment because there were was “a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant’s preferred nondiscriminatory explanation for its adverse employment decision was pretextual.” Van Wagenen v. Reno, 246 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished disposition). The district court conducted a bench trial and issued thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law. After a careful review of the record, we conclude there were no clear errors in the findings of fact. Most crucially, the district court’s finding that Dona Coultice’s testimony was credible and that Coultice reasonably understood Van Wagenen to not want the six month extension was not clearly erroneous. Plaintiff urges a different, and plausible, construction of the testimony. However, it is not our function on appeal to revisit factual findings absent clear error.

Plaintiff contends that the…