Tran
Tran v. California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Connie T. Tran appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in favor of the State of California, Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) in her Title VII action alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 269 (9th Cir.1996); Fisher v. City of San Jose, 509 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Caltrans on Tran’s claim that she was sexually harassed by her husband’s supervisor. Caltrans demonstrated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment actions, and Tran failed to create a triable issue as to whether Caltrans’ nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. See Bradley, 104 F.3d at 270 ; see also Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 , 1029 (9th Cir.2001) (“[A] district court is not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).