
    Maria FERIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., Erroneously Sued as DeVry Inc, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56166
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 9, 2016 Pasadena, California
    FILED June 13, 2016
    Martin Isaac Aarons, Attorney, The Aarons Law Firm, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Frederick Scott Page, Attorney, Kiran A. Seldon, Attorney, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Feria (“Feria”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DeVry University, Inc. (“DeVry”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in favor 'of the nonmoving party. Earl v. Nielsen Media Res., Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011).

1. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim. Feria failed to allege sufficient facts that she was actually or constructively discharged. See Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 1238, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, 1025, 1027, 1030 (1994).

2. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the California Labor Code §§ 1102.5(b) and (c) claims. Fe-ria was not subjected to an actionable adverse employment action, primarily because she was not actually or constructively discharged. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123, 1142-43 (2005) (defining adverse employment action); see also Edgerly v. City of Oakland, 211 Cal.App.4th 1191, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 425, 430-31 (2012); Mokler v. Cty. of Orange, 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568, 580 (2007). Feria has also not met the statutory requirements because she made only an- internal complaint, rather than filing a report with “a government or law enforcement agency.” Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) (2003). Thus, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the district court properly granted summary judgment.

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