RUBY BRADLEY V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEP'T OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, No. 23-15569 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBY BRADLEY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15569 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02419-DAD-CKD v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Ruby Bradley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging race discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s race discrimination claims because Bradley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for the positions for which she applied. See Campbell v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII); Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (Cal. 2000) (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under FEHA). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s failureto-prevent-discrimination claim because Bradley failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether she was subjected to discrimination. See Featherstone v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258, 272 (Ct. App. 2017). (“Where . . . a plaintiff cannot establish a claim for discrimination [under FEHA], the employer as a matter of law cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent same[.]”). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradley’s retaliation claims because Bradley failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendant retaliated against her. See Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing 2 23-15569 elements of Title VII retaliation claim); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123, 1130 (Cal. 2005) (applying the same standard for retaliation claims under FEHA). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 23-15569
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
