
    Kimberly Melody MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-36124.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    Filed Dec. 1, 2014.
    Willie Jordan-Curtis, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kimberly Melody Mitchell, Troutdale, OR, pro se.
    James Edward Cox, Jr., Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CLIFTON, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Kimberly Melody Mitchell appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the Postmaster General, United States Postal Service. We affirm.

Because Plaintiff did not timely challenge the district court’s instructions, we review for plain error. See Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1230 (9th Cir.2011) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 51(d)(2)). The court’s error in stating the causation standard in Plaintiffs Title VII retaliation claim as “sole” instead of “but-for” cause is not reversible because it was more probably than not harmless. See Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir.2013). Plaintiffs counsel argued that a sole cause — discrimination, not Plaintiffs absences — resulted in her termination. The jury also found for Defendant on Plaintiffs related Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim, which was nearly identical except that it required a lower “motivating factor” causation standard.

Because Plaintiff did not make an offer of proof, we also review her evidentiary challenge for plain error. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(e); United States v. Hayat, 710 F.3d 875, 894 (9th Cir.2013). The district court’s relevance-based exclusion of testimony by Plaintiffs supervisor was not plainly erroneous. These complaints were mere allegations of wrongdoing. Plaintiff was not precluded from asking the witness about actual episodes of discrimination or about adjudications or findings of discrimination.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     