MEMORANDUM Elsa Solveig Billingham appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in her employment action alleging sex and age discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. The district court properly granted
summary judgment on Billingham’s discrimination and retaliation claims because she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more favorably, see id. at 1124 (finding that the plaintiffs “proposed comparators [we]re not similarly situated because they were not subject to [a Last Chance Agreement]”), and as to whether defendant’s reason for terminating her and classifying her as ineligible for rehire was pretextual, see id. at 1124-25 (affirming
summary judgment where the plaintiff did not raise any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment action was pre-textual); Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir.2003) (affirming
summary judgment on retaliation claim). Moreover, Billingham failed to show a causal connection between her administra-five complaints and her termination and ineligibility for rehire. See Manatt, 339 F.3d at 802. We do not address issues that Billingham has not raised or argued on appeal. See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n. 5 (9th Cir.2008). Billingham’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.