Opinion
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2006.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
John M. McCoy, III, Esq., Jennifer L. Coon, Esq., Bird Marella Boxer & Wolpert, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff--Appellant.
Gloria J. Walker, Oceanside, CA, pro se.
Cindy M. Cipriani, Esq., Beth A. Clukey, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant--Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-00953-BTM.
Before: KOZINSKI, TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The district court's finding that Walker's termination was not "actually motivated" by her race, cf. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (quoting Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701,
Page 969.
123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993)), is amply supported by the record.
2. The district court's finding that Walker's supervisors did not know about her EEO claim at the time they decided to fire her is also supported by the record. Thus, the district court properly found no "causal link" between Walker's EEO claim and her termination. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000).
3. Placing Walker on paid administrative leave after the decision had already been made to fire her was not an "adverse employment action" because it was not "reasonably likely to deter" any "protected activity." Id. at 1243.
AFFIRMED.