Pakzad

MEMORANDUM **

Mahzad Pakzad appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Volex, Inc., in her action alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After de novo review, Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 269 (9th Cir.1996), we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Pakzad’s claim that she was not promoted to a management position because of her gender. Pakzad failed to rebut the defendant’s evidence that she (1) had performance problems, (2) lacked management experience, and (3) was not eligible for promotion because defendant’s policy required six months of tenure in one position. Morever, the defendant filled the position with an individual who had management experience. See Bodett v. CoxCom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736, 744-46 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that plaintiffs evidence failed to raise a triable issue as to discrimination).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Pakzad’s claim that *590 she was demoted on account of gender discrimination because she did not demonstrate she was subject to an adverse…