Mihailescu

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the district court properly granted Maryville Nursing Home’s (“Ma-ryville”) motion for summary judgment on Mihailescu’s workers’ compensation discrimination claim.

In May 2003, Mihailescu filed a workers’ compensation claim for a work-related back injury. On May 26, 2005, she filed a second workers’ compensation claim, again for a work-related back injury. On June 2, 2005, she invoked a restriction on lifting at work imposed by her doctor because of her most recent back injury. On June 3, 2005, only one day after invoking the restriction on lifting, and only eight days after filing her second workers’ compensation claim, Mihailescu was fired. Mary-ville’s only proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination that was not rejected by the district court was that Mihailescu had once refused to permit some nursing students from a community college to take residents’ vital signs, which had been “poor community relations.”

Maryville hired Mihailescu in 1989. Thereafter, for 16 years Mihailescu received consistent good performance reviews and regular salary increases. Given this long record of…

MEMORANDUM *

Elena Mihailescu, a female over the age of forty, appeals the district court’s grant *719 of summary judgment in favor of her employer, the Maryville Nursing Home, a non-profit Oregon organization, and Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon Maryville Corporation, an Oregon corporation (collectively “Maryville”). Mihailescu filed an action against Maryville for (1) age and workers’ compensation discrimination, in violation of the Age and Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 628 , Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.030, and Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.040; and (2) the common law claim of wrongful termination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary.

The district court did not err by applying the federal burden-shifting framework to Mihailescu’s state law discrimination claim. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1092-93 (9th Cir.2001).

Additionally, the district court did not err by granting Maryville’s motion for summary judgment because Mihailescu failed to provide “specific and substantial” circumstantial evidence of pretext to…