Parsanian v. Tulino

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZEPUOR PARSANIAN, No. 24-824 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08937-FLA-MRW Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* DOUG TULINO, Acting United States Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Zepuor Parsanian appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her Title VII action alleging discrimination based on national origin and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * 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). Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parsanian’s discrimination claims because Parsanian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a “plaintiff can show pretext directly, by showing that discrimination more likely motivated the employer, or indirectly, by showing that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credence”). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parsanian’s retaliation claims because Parsanian failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether there was a causal relationship between any protected activity and a materially adverse employment action. See id. at 646 (setting forth prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII). AFFIRMED. 2 24-824