FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9370566
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Brittnei Lee v. Alejandro Mayorkas

No. 9370566 · Decided January 25, 2023
No. 9370566 · Ninth Circuit · 2023 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 25, 2023
Citation
No. 9370566
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRITTNEI LEE, No. 21-55982 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02236-PA-PJW v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Acting MEMORANDUM* Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, a government entity, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2023** Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Brittnei Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her Title VII employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d * 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). 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lee failed to satisfy her burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination where the record reflects that Lee violated her employer’s code of conduct and that no employee who used their cellphone in the same manner as Lee was disciplined differently. See id. at 1156 (setting forth burden-shifting framework for Title VII actions and explaining that to establish a prima facie case a plaintiff must show “(1) that they are members of a protected class; (2) that they were qualified for their positions and performing their jobs satisfactorily; (3) that they experienced adverse employment actions; and (4) that similarly situated individuals outside [their] protected class were treated more favorably” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]ndividuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.”). AFFIRMED. 2 21-55982
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Brittnei Lee v. Alejandro Mayorkas in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 25, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9370566 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →