Brittnei Lee v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRITTNEI LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Acting
Secretary, United States Department of
Homeland Security, a government entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-55982
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-02236-PA-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Brittnei Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her Title VII employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d
* 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 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55982
1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lee failed to
satisfy her burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination where the
record reflects that Lee violated her employer’s code of conduct and that no
employee who used their cellphone in the same manner as Lee was disciplined
differently. See id. at 1156 (setting forth burden-shifting framework for Title VII
actions and explaining that to establish a prima facie case a plaintiff must show
“(1) that they are members of a protected class; (2) that they were qualified for
their positions and performing their jobs satisfactorily; (3) that they experienced
adverse employment actions; and (4) that similarly situated individuals outside
[their] protected class were treated more favorably” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[I]ndividuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display
similar conduct.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --