HARRISON v. WELLS FARGO BANK (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Patrina Harrison appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her action alleging racial discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), and the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lindsey v. SLT L.A., LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harrison failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for the loan she sought from defendant Wells Fargo or whether Wells Fargo's reason for denying her loan application was pretextual. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1) (providing that under ECOA it is unlawful “for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction ․ on the basis of race, color ․”); Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d 532, 536 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), is applicable to FHA and § 1981 claims); Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc., 648 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff asserting a § 1981 claim must prove she is qualified for the loan sought).

AFFIRMED.