Becky Nguyen v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BECKY NGUYEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-17027
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03780-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 13, 2018***
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Becky Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her diversity action alleging age and disability discrimination claims under the
California Fair Employment and Housing (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17027
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Deppe v. United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262,
1264 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nguyen
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s non-
discriminatory reason for laying her off was pretextual. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l,
Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14, 1118-19 (Cal. 2000) (setting forth burden-shifting
framework for analyzing claims of discrimination under the FEHA and noting that
summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where, given the strength of the
employer’s legitimate reasons, any countervailing circumstantial evidence is too
weak to raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred); see also Hersant v.
Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 1997) (“[T]he
ultimate issue [is] not whether the employer offered an unbelievable explanation
for the adverse action but whether the employer acted for a discriminatory
reason.”).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --