MCDANIEL v. WILKIE (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Essie McDaniel appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Summary judgment on McDaniel’s retaliation claim was proper because McDaniel failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for not hiring McDaniel was pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining burden-shifting framework for Title VII retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext); see also Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must offer “specific, substantial evidence of pretext” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

We do not consider 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.