Barbara Ann Price v. Blue and Gold Fleet

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA ANN PRICE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BLUE AND GOLD FLEET,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16749

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-02793-HSG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Barbara Ann Price appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763

*
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

NOV 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16749
F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Price failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for taking adverse action against Price was pretextual.
See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888-91 (9th Cir. 1994) (burden-
shifting framework applies to discrimination claims under Title VII and the
ADEA; circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).
We reject as unsupported by record Price’s contention that defendant failed
to engage in discovery in a proper manner.
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.