Stucky

Stucky v. Department of Education

Good Law
337 F. App'x 611
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 3, 2009No. 08-16356California636 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004). Although Stucky established a prima facie case of retaliation based on her suspension and termination following her filing of a January 2006 civil rights action in district court and a July 2006 complaint with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (“HCRC”), she faked to rebut defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for each adverse employment action with “specific and substantial” evidence of pretext. 1 See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998)). Her vague allusions to her previous lawsuit and her conclusory, unsupported allegations of animus and due process violations in her grievance proceedings were insufficient to meet her burden on summary judgment. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158 , 1167 & n. 4 (9th Cir.2005).

Stucky failed to present any evidence that her suspension or termination was in any way related to her gender, and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination. See Godwin, 150 F.3d at 1220…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.