Lay Trece V. Williams v. Circle Kstores Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAY TRECE V. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CIRCLE K STORES INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16949
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01952-SMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lay Trece V. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her Title VII employment action alleging discrimination and
retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Weil v. Citizens Telecom Servs. Co., LLC, 922 F.3d 993, 1001 (9th Cir. 2019). We
* 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).
FILED
JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16949
affirm.
In her opening brief, Williams fails to address the district court’s dismissal
of her sex and age discrimination claims, and she has therefore waived her
challenge to the district court’s orders on these claims. See Indep. Towers of Wash.
v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any
claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta
v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro
se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant
discriminated against her based on her race or retaliated against her. See Unt v.
Aerospace Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1446 (9th Cir. 1985) (“An employee is not
protected by Title VII when he violates legitimate company rules, knowingly
disobeys company orders, disrupts the work environment of his employer, or
willfully interferes with the attainment of the employer’s goals.” (citations
omitted)).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --