Watson

Watson v. Las Vegas Valley Water District

Good Law
268 F. App'x 624
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 4, 2008No. 06-15739California1,177 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia Neale Watson appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her claims against her former employer, the Las Vegas Valley Water District (“the District”). The district court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment on Watson’s claims of hostile environment and intentional infliction of emotion distress, *626 and granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law on her retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; reviewing de novo, see Fichman v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2008) (summary judgment); Summers v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 508 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir.2007) (judgment as a matter of law), we affirm.

I. Hostile Environment

Watson’s hostile environment claim was based on three incidents: (1) a December 4, 1998 incident involving co-worker Dan Nguyen, (2) a March 18, 1999 incident involving supervisor David Rexing, and (3) a May 14, 1999 incident involving supervisor John Fronk. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the circumstances of each incident. As Watson does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that the latter two incidents were not based on Watson’s sex, we address only the December 4th…

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.