BLACKMAN BAHAM v. NIELSEN (2018)

MEMORANDUM ****

Sheila Blackman-Baham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging race, sex, age, and disability discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ); Vinieratos v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 939 F.2d 762, 768 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Blackman-Baham’s discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII stemming from her terminations because Blackman-Baham failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir. 2001) (“In order to bring a Title VII claim in district court, a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies.”); Vinieratos, 939 F.2d at 773 (failure to exhaust administrative remedies “forecloses any claim to jurisdiction under the Rehabilitation Act”); cf. Hays v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S., 868 F.2d 328, 330-31 (9th Cir. 1989) (a plaintiff is precluded from raising a claim in federal court that she failed to present to the Merit Systems Protection Board).

The district court properly dismissed Blackman-Baham’s remaining claims because Blackman-Baham failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements of a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act); Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1003 n.1, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirements for prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII); Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII).

AFFIRMED.