Young
Young v. Trinity Property Consultants, LLC
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Lilia Young (“Young”) appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on her three employment discrimination claims. 1 We affirm.
We apply the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), burden-shifting method of proof in evaluating Young’s discrimination and retaliation claims. Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136 , 1140-41 (9th Cir.2001); Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir.2001). If the plaintiff presents a prima facie claim, then “the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.” Walker, 272 F.3d at 1128 . “If the defendant articulates such a reason, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the reason was merely a pretext for a discriminatory motive.” Id. To avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must produce “ ‘specific, substantial evidence of pretext.’ ” Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir.1983)).