Smith v. Fontana Unified School Dist

Filed 4/24/06 Smith v. Fontana Unified School Dist. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. A. Rex Victor, Judge. Affirmed.

Angelica Smith, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Creason & Aarvig, Maria K. Aarvig and Tyson A. Young, for Defendants and Respondents.

1. Introduction

Plaintiff and appellant Angelica Smith appeals after the trial court granted the motion of defendant and respondent Fontana Unified School District (the District) for summary judgment on her complaint for employment discrimination. The trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment; we affirm the judgment in favor of the District.

2. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint is the operative pleading. Plaintiff alleged that she was wrongfully denied a permanent position in the District's police department. She alleged that she was not hired because of her sex, and that less qualified male applicants were hired.

The District moved for summary judgment. The District's moving papers showed:

Plaintiff worked periodically as a substitute campus security officer during the 2000/2001 school year. On January 16, 2001, the District posted an opening for a permanent security officer position. Plaintiff applied for the position. Plaintiff's overall score on the written test, physical agility test, and oral interviews was the lowest of all the applicants. Plaintiff was not hired.

At the end of the school year, in June of 2001, the District decided not to retain plaintiff as a substitute security officer. During the 2000/2001 school year, the District had left telephone messages for plaintiff on or about April 2, 2001, and April 5, 2001. Plaintiff did not return those calls until May 8, 2001. Plaintiff was removed from the list of substitute security officers because she had not worked for a period of three months, she had been unavailable to work at times, she failed to return telephone calls in a timely fashion, and she failed to keep in contact with the District. Plaintiff first complained of discrimination in January of 2002, approximately seven months after she had been removed from the substitute security officer list. Other evidence showed that plaintiff was on the list with the District for work as a substitute warehouse worker or substitute mail clerk.

An assistant principal at a school where plaintiff worked as a security officer described plaintiff as, â€