United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017-06-02
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; sex-discrimination and retaliation claims (Title VII and Title IX) by demoted university psychologist; summary judgment for employer affirmed by CA10 on lack of pretext (alternative ground as to discrimination); result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: demotion (Feb.-Mar. 2013); failure to reinstate supervisory duties (Aug. 2013); subject: count=demotion (Feb.-Mar. 2013); failure to reinstate supervisory duties (Aug. 2013) | demotion/removal-of-supervisory-role-with-small-pay-cut | Dr. Kent presented Dr. Hiatt with three options: (1) resign; (2) be demoted and undergo six months of outside counseling about her supervisory style; or (3) remain in her position and allow Human Resources (“HR”) to handle the matter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [5863:6097] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.In her new position as Staff Psychologist/Outreach Coordinator, Dr. Hiatt was paid $58,000— a $2,000 reduction in pay from her previous position.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [6946:7091] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.For discrimination claims, “[a]n adverse employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18344:18609] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.A reasonable person in Dr. Hiatt’s position would view her demotion to Outreach Coordinator, coupled with a salary decrease of $2,000, as an adverse employment action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [21957:22124] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.For the foregoing reasons, the only actions that qualify as adverse employment actions against Dr. Hiatt were (1) the demotion and (2) the failure to reinstate her supervisory duties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25940:26123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: resignation (May 2014); theory: constructive discharge; subject: count=resignation (May 2014); theory=constructive discharge | constructive-discharge/conditions-not-objectively-intolerable | Upon her return, Dr. Palma-teer increased Dr. Hiatt’s weekly clinical hours from 22 to 24 hours.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [11679:11775] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.She also required Dr. Hiatt to provide a doctor’s note to justify non-Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) sick leave, obtain permission before “blocking her schedule” (i.e., make certain blocks of time in her calendar unavailable for clinical appointments), and make up for missed clinical time.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [11776:12069] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.On May 30, 2014, Dr. Hiatt submitted a letter of resignation, in which she complained of retaliation for filing her internal EEO and EEOC complaints.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [13033:13182] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.“To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that she had no other choice but to quit.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [23022:23124] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.The working conditions she describes—such as being required to work two extra hours per week, turn in timely case notes, and justify non-FMLA sick time—do not amount to an objectively intolerable working environment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [23477:23693] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: differential workplace requirements after return from leave (2014); subject: count=differential workplace requirements after return from leave (2014) Plaintiff recast "differential treatment" (normally because-of/pretext evidence) as a free-standing adverse action; the court rejects it for want of comparators either way. | differential-treatment/no-similarly-situated-comparator-identified | She suggests Ross Artwohl and Kimberly Mercer as relevant comparators because, like she did, they reported to Dr. Palmateer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25415:25539] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt also proposes Dr. Fogle and Dr. Mathewson because Dr. Palmateer supervised them and the same professional standards applied to them as to Dr. Hiatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25673:25831] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.But because Dr. Hiatt supervised these two individuals, they were not in positions comparable to Dr. Hiatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25832:25939] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.An employee is similarly situated to the plaintiff if the employee shares the same supervisor, is subject to the same standards governing performance evaluation and discipline, and has similar relevant employment circumstances, such as work history.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25042:25291] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt has failed to identify any other similarly situated employees who allegedly received differential treatment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25296:25414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) Prima facie case assumed without deciding; the district court had held it failed for lack of comparators, and the panel affirms on the alternative pretext ground instead. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | private-employer/private-university | Colorado Seminary owns and operates the University of Denver (“DU”), including DU’s Health and Counseling Center (“HCC”), which provides wellness services such as counseling to DU’s student body.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [571:766] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.In November 2011, DU hired Dr. Hiatt to be a Staff Psychologist and the Training Director at the HCC.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [767:868] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: demotion; subject: count=demotion | performance/loss-of-trainee-confidence-ethics-concern-and-supervisory-style | First, Dr. Fogle, Dr. Mathewson, and Dr. Shanley elected to end supervision with Dr. Hiatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [3772:3863] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Based on those conversations, Dr. Kent determined Dr. Hiatt was in an “ethical grey area.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [4616:4706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Further, rather than take personal responsibility for the supervisees’ reactions, Dr. Hiatt blamed the supervi-sees’ pathologies as causing their strong reactions, including their decisions to stop supervision with her.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [5277:5496] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.DU’s proffered reasons satisfy its burden to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for the demotion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [27136:27267] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: failure to reinstate supervisory duties; subject: count=failure to reinstate supervisory duties | performance/unchanged-supervisory-style-and-negative-trainee-feedback | Based on her sessions with Dr. Hiatt, Dr. Asher opined that Dr. Hiatt “likely could return” to a supervisory role, but also noted that she was not likely to change her supervisory style.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [7207:7393] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.In their exit interviews after she was demoted, several supervisees described “troubling interactions” with Dr. Hiatt during supervision that gave DU further reason to believe Dr. Hiatt had “very poor boundaries.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [39169:39382] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Once again, Dr. Hiatt does not contest these were legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [36990:37098] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Impermissible motivating factor in mixed-motive cases (§ 2000e-2(m)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: failure to reinstate supervisory duties; subject: count=failure to reinstate supervisory duties The second fact is the plaintiff's own pretext evidence (subjective reinstatement criteria in the provost's email), held insufficient. | honest-belief/employer-may-disagree-with-outside-consultant-and-use-subjective-criteria | In Dr. Kent’s view, Dr. Asher’s recommendation was equivocal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [38266:38327] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.She pointed to the October 2013 email from Associate Provost for Student Life Patricia Helton, which called on Dr. Hiatt to have “better awareness about the power she holds” and “demonstrate[ ] appropriate professional boundaries in all contexts” before she could resume supervision.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [40226:40509] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.“Evidence that the employer should not have made the [adverse employment] decision—for example, that the employer was mistaken or used poor business judgment—is not sufficient to show that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credibility.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [19839:20083] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt has not shown DU’s reasons for refusing to reinstate her supervisory duties were pretextual for retaliation or discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [40976:41112] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: demotion; subject: count=demotion Even a mistaken ethics assessment is not pretext if reached honestly after hearing both sides and consulting outside experts; reasons given at the time match the litigation reasons. | honest-belief/consistent-contemporaneous-reasons-after-fair-investigation | When Dr. Kent and Dr. Palmateer met with Dr. Hiatt on February 22, 2013, and presented the three options to her, the reasons they stated then are the same reasons that DU provides in this litigation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [28380:28579] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Kent presented both Dr. Hiatt’s and Dr. Fogle’s timelines of events to Dr. Philinda Hutchings—the Dean of the Midwestern School of Professional Psychology—and Dr. Bill Bracker—the former Director of the Nova Southeastern University Consortium Internship.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [32876:33134] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Consistent with Smothers, DU gave Dr. Hiatt multiple opportunities to explain her version of events.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [33947:34047] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Indeed, Dr. Hiatt admitted in her deposition that supervisees even had a name for it—getting “Tawny-ed.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [35306:35410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [20165:20354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt has not shown that DU’s reasons for removing her from her position as Training Director and demoting her to Outreach Coordinator were dishonest or made in bad faith, Swackhammer, 498 F.3d at 1169-70, or were “so incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory that a rational factfinder could conclude they are unworthy of belief,” Johnson, 594 F.3d at 1211 (brackets and quotations omitted).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [35699:36102] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: assumed; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) The opinion never says how the demotion is claimed to be sex-based (the trigger was a romantic relationship with a former private supervisee); the whole prima facie case is assumed. | sex/unspecified-theory | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s ... sex.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [16142:16285] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.We assume without deciding that Dr. Hiatt could make a prima facie McDonnell Douglas showing of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Title IX.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [20393:20553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: 2000e-3(a) retaliation claim (demotion; failure to reinstate); subject: count=2000e-3(a) retaliation claim (demotion; failure to reinstate) Retaliation prima facie case also assumed; resolved on the same pretext analysis as discrimination, with timing (reasons given five days before the first protected activity) as an extra point. | pretext/adverse-decision-communicated-before-protected-activity | On February 27, 2013, before Dr. Hiatt chose an option, her attorney sent DU a letter claiming DU’s request for Dr. Hiatt to leave her position as Training Director amounted to sex discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [6684:6880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Kent and Dr. Palmateer initially gave Dr. Hiatt the reasons for her demotion in their February 22, 2013 meeting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [30590:30706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.For retaliation claims, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would .have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18900:19165] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.DU could not retaliate for Dr. Hiatt’s protected activity until she had engaged in such activity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [31017:31114] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt cannot, therefore, create a triable issue that DU’s reasons for any adverse employment actions were pretextual for sex discrimination or retaliation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [41719:41878] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s ... sex.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s ... sex.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [16142:16285] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.
interpretation
For discrimination claims, “[a]n adverse employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
For discrimination claims, “[a]n adverse employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18344:18609] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).
interpretation
“To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that she had no other choice but to quit.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
“To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that she had no other choice but to quit.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [23022:23124] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).
interpretation
An employee is similarly situated to the plaintiff if the employee shares the same supervisor, is subject to the same standards governing performance evaluation and discipline, and has similar relevant employment circumstances, such as work history.
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
An employee is similarly situated to the plaintiff if the employee shares the same supervisor, is subject to the same standards governing performance evaluation and discipline, and has similar relevant employment circumstances, such as work history.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25042:25291] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Ultimate causation/intent requirement under § 2000e-2(a): the protected trait was a determinative cause of the adverse employment action.
interpretation
“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [20165:20354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
“Evidence that the employer should not have made the [adverse employment] decision—for example, that the employer was mistaken or used poor business judgment—is not sufficient to show that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credibility.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
“Evidence that the employer should not have made the [adverse employment] decision—for example, that the employer was mistaken or used poor business judgment—is not sufficient to show that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credibility.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [19839:20083] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
For retaliation claims, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would .have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
For retaliation claims, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would .have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18900:19165] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
interpretation
DU could not retaliate for Dr. Hiatt’s protected activity until she had engaged in such activity.
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
DU could not retaliate for Dr. Hiatt’s protected activity until she had engaged in such activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [31017:31114] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.