United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019-04-08
29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: appellate review of retaliation dismissal; result: remanded; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 31
| Case | Employer coverage and exclusions | Age forty or older | Hiring discharge or employment terms | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives | Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 31
| Case | Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | Covered employment agency | Covered labor organization | Opposition or participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 31
| Case | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | Retaliatory causal connection | Agency referral discrimination | Membership classification referral or causing discrimination | Employer agency or union advertiser | Age-based notice or advertisement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 31
| Case | Wage reduction to comply | Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan | Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan | Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction | Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance | Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 31
| Case | Narrow bona fide occupational qualification | Displayed scope and specialized exclusions | Charge filing waiver and remedies | Foreign workplace conflict with local law | Good cause for employer discharge or discipline | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · triable (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable 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. | retaliation/transfer-denial-after-hotline-complaint | 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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [10931:11740] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3b4abda9b979025ac492543c26131c9c5310e43746649f023d41554dbcad96e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [54151:54477] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3b4abda9b979025ac492543c26131c9c5310e43746649f023d41554dbcad96e.a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverseSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [36793:36872] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3b4abda9b979025ac492543c26131c9c5310e43746649f023d41554dbcad96e. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Rather, a plaintiff may recover for retaliation by "show[ing] 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 ." Id . at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (internal quotation marks omitted (emphases ours)).
Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. — 921 F.3d 30 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
Rather, a plaintiff may recover for retaliation by "show[ing] 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 ." Id . at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (internal quotation marks omitted (emphases ours)).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0030-01; Unicode character offsets [36726:37086] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3b4abda9b979025ac492543c26131c9c5310e43746649f023d41554dbcad96e.Davis-Garett applies Burlington Northern: harm need not change employment terms, but trivial slights do not suffice. Evaluate context and employer knowledge of protected conduct.