Peters

Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Shamrock Foods Company should be reversed, and the case remanded for trial.

Peters provided direct evidence of discriminatory intent when she testified that her supervisor, Elliot Begoun, explained that the reason he denied her the position of External Marketing Manager was because she was a “mom” and therefore “couldn’t travel.” This statement, on its face, establishes sex discrimination because it demonstrates clearly impermissible sex-stereotyping. See, e.g., Back v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free Sch. Disk, 365 F.3d 107, 120 (2d Cir.2004) (“[I]t takes no special training to discern stereotyping in the view that a woman cannot ‘be a good mother’ and have a job that requires long hours.... These are not the kind of ‘innocuous words’ that we have previously held to be insufficient ... to provide evidence of discriminatory intent.”); Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir.2000) (finding evidence of sex discrimination where employment decision maker questioned plaintiffs “ability to fulfill her work responsibilities should she have a…

MEMORANDUM **

Kimberly Peters appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Shamrock Foods Company. We review de novo, Qwest Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253 , 1256 (9th Cir.2006), and affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not repeat them here.

Peters alleges that Shamrock unlawfully discriminated against her based upon her gender when Shamrock failed to promote her to the position of Food Service Sales Manger. 1 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). Under the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Peters has established a prima facie case of discrimination. See Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir.2005).

*32 In response, Shamrock provides legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for why it hired Matt Lewis over her for the position. See Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir.1996). Shamrock submits evidence that Lewis was more qualified than Peters—he had a college degree, computer skills, a great reputation within the company, strong leadership skills, superior interview…