Emeldi v. University of Oregon
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5864
9th Cir.2012Background
- Emeldi, a University of Oregon Ph.D. student, alleged retaliation in a Title IX suit after complaining of gender bias and discrimination.
- Her dissertation chair, Dr. Rob Horner, resigned in November 2007, leaving Emeldi unable to complete her Ph.D.
- Emeldi claimed Horner’s resignation and related actions followed her complaints about institutional bias favoring male candidates.
- She sought a replacement chair and pursued internal grievances; fifteen faculty were solicited but none agreed to supervise.
- District court granted summary judgment for the University on Title IX retaliation and related claims, holding no protected activity or causal link shown.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a Title VII-style retaliation framework applies and there is triable evidence of causation and pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Emeldi engaged in protected activity under Title IX | Emeldi alleged complaints about gender bias and unequal treatment in the department. | Emeldi's statements were not protected activity or not clearly tied to discrimination. | Yes; complaints about institutional bias constitute protected activity. |
| Whether Horner's resignation was an adverse action | Resignation deprived Emeldi of a dissertation chair and ability to complete the Ph.D. | Resignation was a legitimate academic judgment about progress, not retaliation. | Yes; loss of a dissertation chair is a materially adverse action. |
| Whether a causal link existed between protected activity and adverse action | Proximity in time and communication of Emeldi’s complaints to Friestad to Horner showed causation. | No evidence Horner knew of the complaints or that retaliation followed. | Yes; evidence could support a causal link with triable meaning. |
| Whether the University’s reasons were pretextual | Proffered nonretaliatory reasons are pretextual given timing and surrounding conduct. | Reasons reflect substantive academic concerns about dissertation readiness. | Yes; a reasonable jury could find pretext and retaliatory motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2005) (retaliation against complainer actionable under Title IX)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action in retaliation cases requires material adversity)
- Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (prima facie retaliation standard; proof minimal at threshold)
- Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (causation inference from proximity in time; limitations noted)
- Lipsett v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1988) (Title VII framework informs Title IX retaliation analysis)
- Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1999) (utilizes Title VII interpretations to illuminate Title IX)