Clark County School District v. Breeden
149 L. Ed. 2d 509, 532 US 268, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3365 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employee's complaint to constitute protected opposition under Title VII, the employee must have an objectively reasonable belief that the opposed conduct is unlawful. Additionally, to establish a causal link for a retaliation claim based solely on temporal proximity, the adverse employment action must occur very close in time to the employer's awareness of the protected activity.
Facts:
- On October 21, 1994, Shirley Breeden, an employee of the Clark County School District, was in a meeting with her male supervisor and another male employee to review job applicant files.
- One applicant's file included a report of a comment the applicant had previously made: 'I hear making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon.'
- Breeden's supervisor read the comment aloud, looked at Breeden, and stated, 'I don't know what that means.'
- The other male employee then said, 'Well, I'll tell you later,' and both men chuckled.
- Breeden complained about the incident to the offending employee and to two assistant superintendents.
- On August 23, 1995, Breeden filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
- On April 10, 1997, Breeden's supervisor mentioned to a union representative that she was contemplating transferring Breeden to a different position.
- In May 1997, the School District transferred Breeden to the new position.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirley Breeden filed a Title VII retaliation suit against the Clark County School District in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the School District.
- Breeden, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment.
- The Clark County School District, as the petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Title VII, does an employee's complaint about a single, isolated, non-severe offensive comment constitute protected 'opposition,' and can a 20-month gap between protected activity and an adverse employment action establish the requisite causal link for a retaliation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. An employee's complaint is not protected opposition when it concerns a single, isolated incident that no reasonable person could believe violates Title VII, and an adverse action occurring 20 months after protected activity is too remote to establish causation by temporal proximity alone. Regarding the first claim, the Court assumes for the sake of argument that an employee's opposition is protected if they have a reasonable belief the conduct was unlawful. However, under established precedent such as Faragher v. Boca Raton, sexual harassment is only actionable if it is so 'severe or pervasive' as to alter the conditions of employment. Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, do not meet this standard. This single comment and the subsequent chuckling was an isolated incident that was not remotely serious enough for a reasonable person to believe it constituted a hostile work environment. Regarding the second claim, the employer was contemplating the transfer before being served with the lawsuit, so the lawsuit could not have been the cause. The more remote protected activity—the EEOC complaint filed 20 months prior to the transfer—is too distant in time to support an inference of causality based on temporal proximity, which must be 'very close.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for what constitutes a hostile work environment and clarifies the objective standard for an employee's 'reasonable belief' in an opposition clause retaliation claim. By holding that a single, non-serious incident is insufficient, the Court makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to base retaliation claims on complaints about minor workplace conduct. Furthermore, the ruling strictly curtails the use of temporal proximity as the sole evidence of causation, requiring the protected activity and adverse action to be very close in time. This increases the burden on plaintiffs to produce more direct evidence of retaliatory motive, making it easier for employers to obtain summary judgment in such cases.
Unlock the full brief for Clark County School District v. Breeden