19 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,991 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,978 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,382 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Faragher v. Boca Raton
524 U.S. 775 (1998) Cited 9,314 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998) Cited 7,127 times 92 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,168 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
Vance v. Ball State Univ
570 U.S. 421 (2013) Cited 1,328 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding "that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim," such as hiring and firing
Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp.
786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) Cited 928 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that because alleged harassment met elements of hostile work environment claim, complaining about such harassment was necessarily protected activity for purpose of retaliation claim
Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass
242 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,029 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reasonable jury could find that an African-American plaintiff was subject to a hostile work environment where he was continuously exposed to racist comments by his supervisor
Equal Emp. v. Sunbelt
521 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) Cited 702 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "complaints premised on nothing more than 'rude treatment by [coworkers],' 'callous behavior by [one's] supervisors,' or 'a routine difference of opinion and personality conflict with [one's] supervisor' are not actionable under Title VII"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,861 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1997 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 1997 Cited 2,454 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring exhaustion of "such administrative remedies as are available"

Mccurdy v. Red Onion State Prison

19 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

Holding "that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim," such as hiring and firing

Holding that because alleged harassment met elements of hostile work environment claim, complaining about such harassment was necessarily protected activity for purpose of retaliation claim

Holding that a reasonable jury could find that an African-American plaintiff was subject to a hostile work environment where he was continuously exposed to racist comments by his supervisor

Holding that "complaints premised on nothing more than 'rude treatment by [coworkers],' 'callous behavior by [one's] supervisors,' or 'a routine difference of opinion and personality conflict with [one's] supervisor' are not actionable under Title VII"

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Requiring exhaustion of "such administrative remedies as are available"