Morsovillo

MEMORANDUM ***

1. Ellis’s conduct didn’t create a hostile work environment because it wasn’t frequent, severe, pervasive or directed at Morsovillo because of her sex. See Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir.2005); Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 923-24 (9th Cir.2000). The evidence permits no other reasonable conclusion, so the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict in Ellis’s favor on Morsovillo’s hostile work environment claim. See Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1256 (9th Cir.1985).

2. The other defendants can’t be held liable for allowing Ellis to create a hostile work environment because the work environment wasn’t hostile. There’s no genuine issue of material fact on this point and the district court thus properly granted the other defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Morsovillo’s hostile work environment claim. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.2002).

3. Morsovillo can't make a prima facie showing she was discriminated against in filling the “lead bailiff’ job because Morsovillo wasn’t qualified for the job and Ellis was. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411…