Summary
finding comments made by Plaintiff's supervisor about her pregnancy were "stray remarks . . . insufficient to establish discrimination"
Summary of this case from Higgins v. Nw. Farm Credit Servs.Opinion
No. 12-16268
10-30-2014
ISABELLA NUNES-BAPTISTA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WFM HAWAII, LLC, DBA Whole Foods Market; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:11 CV-0104 LEK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 8, 2014
University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant Nunes-Baptista appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of WFM on her claims of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") under Hawaii law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Vasquez v. Cnty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We "must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citation omitted).
1. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nunes-Baptista's sex discrimination claims because Nunes-Baptista failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her pregnancy was a motivating factor in WFM's decision to terminate her. The comments made by Nunes-Baptista's supervisor are "stray remarks . . . insufficient to establish discrimination." Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 892 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 1990). As a result, Nunes-Baptista is unable to present sufficient evidence that WFM's legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for terminating Nunes-Baptista is pretextual.
2. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nunes-Baptista's IIED claim because Nunes-Baptista did not present evidence sufficient to find that WFM's actions were "outrageous," as required under Hawaii state law. See Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037, 1048 & n.12 (Haw.1994).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.