Emeldi v. University of Oregon
698 F.3d 715
9th Cir.2012Background
- Emeldi sued the University of Oregon alleging Title IX retaliation for complaints about gender bias in the Ph.D. program and discrimination by her chair, Horner.
- Horner resigned as Emeldi’s dissertation chair after she filed her complaints; Emeldi could not secure a replacement chair and abandoned her Ph.D. candidacy.
- District court granted summary judgment for the University on retaliation and causation grounds; Emeldi appealed.
- Panel majority applied Title VII retaliation framework to Title IX retaliation claims and found sufficient evidence of causation/pretext; district court decision was reversed.
- Court addressed jurisdiction over removal and remanded; the opinion emphasizes the harm to academic freedom if summary judgment is easily defeated.
- Dissent argues Emeldi failed to show causation and pretext; emphasizes differences between professor-student relationships and employment contexts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII retaliation framework applies to Title IX retaliation | Emeldi relies on Title VII framework to prove retaliation under Title IX. | Panel adopted the Title VII framework for Title IX retaliation. | Title VII framework generally governs Title IX retaliation claims. |
| Whether Emeldi engaged in protected activity under Title IX | Complaints about institutional bias and gender discrimination were protected. | University argues conduct was not protected or may be too attenuated. | Emeldi engaged in protected activity under Title IX. |
| Whether Horner’s resignation was an adverse action | Resignation, without replacement, effectively prevented completion of Ph.D. | Resignation to pursue academic trajectory was not adverse to Emeldi. | Horner’s resignation was an adverse action. |
| Whether a causal link exists between protected activity and adverse action | Proximity in time and communication chain show causation. | Evidence is speculative; no direct causation established. | A jury could infer causation from the record. |
| Whether the University’s reasons for resignation were pretextual | Evidence suggests gender bias influenced resignation; pretext shown. | Reasons were legitimate and non-retaliatory. | Evidence could support a finding of pretext; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2005) ( retaliation is actionable under Title IX)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (mere pleadings can’t defeat summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (evidence must be significantly probative)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims require plausible factual allegations)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (ambiguous conduct cannot prove conspiracy)
- Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (causation inferred from proximity in time (injury after complaint))
- Dawson v. Entek Int'l, 630 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (proximate causation evidentiary principle)