17 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,052 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 217,036 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 12,383 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 9,315 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 7,129 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"
Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp.
786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) Cited 929 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"
Okoli v. City of Baltimore
648 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2011) Cited 437 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “deeply suspicious [fact] that Stewart fired Okoli only hours after she ... complain[ed] to the Mayor” about harassment was sufficient to meet plaintiff's burden to show pretext at the summary judgment stage
Walker v. Thompson
214 F.3d 615 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 410 times
Holding that a triable issue of fact existed on a hostile work environment claim where African American employees were subjected to, inter alia, "patently offensive remarks regarding the[ir] hair" and "conversations in which a co-worker and supervisor used the word 'n****r'"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,940 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 51,663 times 129 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

Mccurdy v. Red Onion State Prison

17 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 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 that the “deeply suspicious [fact] that Stewart fired Okoli only hours after she ... complain[ed] to the Mayor” about harassment was sufficient to meet plaintiff's burden to show pretext at the summary judgment stage

Holding that a triable issue of fact existed on a hostile work environment claim where African American employees were subjected to, inter alia, "patently offensive remarks regarding the[ir] hair" and "conversations in which a co-worker and supervisor used the word 'n****r'"

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

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions