
    Lorraine MANATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA, ex rel its DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16668.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 8, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2016.
    Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Law Office of Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Janet Ellen Traut, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges and BREYER, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorraine Manatt, a former industrial hygienist with the Nevada Department of Business and Industry (the “Department”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department on Manatt’s retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

We agree with the district court that Manatt failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether the “adverse employment actions” taken by the Department were motivated by Manatt reporting a racist video that another employee had shown at her workplace. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000). Even assuming Manatt had made a prima facie case of retaliation, she also failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether the reasons offered by the Department for its actions were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1994). The district court thus properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Department on Manatt’s Title VII retaliation claim,

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