Source: cases/29usc623/f3d-921-30-davis-garett-v-urban.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_921/0030_01/index.html
We have considered all of Anthropologie's appellate arguments in support of summary judgment and have found them to be without merit. The judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for trial of Garett's ADEA claims of hostile work environment and retaliation, and for further consideration of her claims under state laws.
a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse
casedsl 1
case /f3d/921/0030-01
name Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
cite 921 F.3d 30 (2019)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
date 2019-04-08
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_921/0030_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl sha1=06970ca642fd2f30a4479465da86c20d0d558068 chars=54477
law 29usc623
role applied
posture appellate review of retaliation dismissal
result remanded
element retaliatory-adversity : satisfied [triable]
role applied
scope merits
variant retaliation/transfer-denial-after-hotline-complaint
fact @10931..11740 [supports] | However, Garett was not transferred to Edgewater. Soon after Garett's Edgewater interview, Shearer received a call from Anthropologie's regional manager Jen Berry, who informed her of Garett's late-August hotline call and complaint about Shearer's handling of Garett's transfer request. (See id. ¶¶ 52-53.) It was in this telephone conversation that the decision not to transfer Garett to the Edgewater store was made. (See id. ¶ 54; Deposition of Amy Shearer ("Shearer Dep.") at 79-80.) Although Garett testified in her deposition that she did not know who made the decision to deny approval of her transfer to Edgewater (see Garett Dep. 163), she inferred in her affidavit that it was a "retaliat[ory]" decision made by "Shearer instantly" upon learning of Garett's complaint against her (Garett Aff. ¶ 54).
held @54151..54477 | We have considered all of Anthropologie's appellate arguments in support of summary judgment and have found them to be without merit. The judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for trial of Garett's ADEA claims of hostile work environment and retaliation, and for further consideration of her claims under state laws.
rule @36793..36872 | a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse
gloss The court vacates summary judgment and remands for trial. The alleged retaliatory transfer denial raises a triable material-adversity issue under the proper standard, not a proven final liability finding.
misfit The hostile-environment claim is also remanded, but the active ADEA LAW catalogue lacks that separate route. The transfer affidavit contains an inference of retaliation, not an undisputed admission by the decisionmaker.