Clark County School District v. Breeden
- Decided
- April 23, 2001
- Docket
- 00-866
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,456 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “proceeding along lines previously contemplated” after an employee files an EEOC complaint “is no evidence whatever of [the] causality” required to prove retaliation — Kersey v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (2009)
- holding that temporal proximity alone may suffice to establish causation where proximity is very close — Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n (2015)
- holding that a worker who handed his supervisor a note that complained of workplace discrimination and was immediately fired had established an inference of causation by way of suspicious timing — Kidwell v. Eisenhauer (2012)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*269] Pee Curiam.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-3(a), it is unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or because [the employee] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII].” In 1997, respondent filed a §2000e-3(a) retaliation claim against petitioner Clark County School District. The claim as eventually amended alleged that petitioner had taken two separate adverse employment actions against her in response to two different protected activities in which she had engaged. The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioner, No. CV-S-97-365-DWH(RJJ) (D. Nev., Feb. 9, 1999), but a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed over the dissent of Judge Fernandez, No. 99-15522,2000 WL 991821 (July 19, 2000) (per curiam) (unpublished), judgt. order reported at 232 F. 3d 893. We grant the writ of certio-rari and reverse.
On October 21, 1994, respondent’s male supervisor met with respondent and another male employee to review the psychological evaluation reports of four job applicants. The report for one of the applicants disclosed that the applicant had once commented to a co-worker, “I hear making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon.” Brief in Opposition 3. At the meeting respondent’s supervisor read the comment aloud, looked at respondent and stated, “I don’t know what that means.”
Statutes cited
Cite this
Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.