Frank Cheatham v. City of Phoenix, 699 F. App'x 647

Cheatham, a former Deputy Chief for the City of Phoenix Fire Department, sued the City for unlawful retaliation under Title VII after a reassignment to Deputy Chief of Safety in March 2010.
Cheatham reported several sexually explicit incidents at Station One between November and December 2009.
He alleges the reassignment was in retaliation for opposing a hostile work environment.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City.
The court concluded Cheatham failed to show protected activity or a but-for causal link between the reports and the reassignment.
The court noted removal of the drawings after his reports and lack of evidence of hostility toward Cheatham.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cheatham engaged in protected activity under Title VII	Cheatham opposed a hostile environment at Station One	No evidence Cheatham reasonably believed a discriminatory practice occurred	No, no reasonable belief shown by Cheatham
Whether there was a but-for causal link between protected activity and reassignment	Cheatham’s reports caused the reassignment	Reassignment occurred four months later with no per-report disapproval evidence	No, absence of causal connection; no but-for causation shown

Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (establishes prima facie retaliation framework and shifting burden to employer)
Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (requires reasonable belief of discriminatory conduct to prove protected activity)
Dawson v. Entek Int’l, 630 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create abusive environment)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation required for retaliation claims)
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (isolated incidents and subjective impact considerations on protected activity)