United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019-04-08
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: appellate review of retaliation dismissal; result: remanded; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/921/0030-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 | 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)).
/f3d/921/0030-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
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.