892 F.3d 1005
9th Cir.2018Background
- Patricia Campbell, a tenured Hawaii DOE high‑school music teacher, alleged students repeatedly harassed her with racial and sexual epithets and one threat; she reported incidents during 2006–2007.
- DOE vice‑principals investigated Campbell’s complaints and imposed discipline (warnings, detention, suspensions, and some transfers); Campbell contends she was not always informed of outcomes.
- DOE investigators also received multiple complaints about Campbell’s conduct; an investigation found she had intimidated and harassed students, but DOE took no punitive action and she continued working.
- Campbell requested transfers but missed formal transfer windows; she took two consecutive years of unpaid leave (2007–2009). Upon return she was assigned remedial math (not her certification area); she resigned claiming hostile work environment and constructive discharge.
- Campbell sued DOE under Title VII and Title IX for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for DOE on those claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII disparate treatment — adverse action element | Campbell argued DOE actions (lost evaluation, investigation, denial of transfer, unpaid leave, assignment to remedial math, inadequate response to student harassment) were adverse employment actions | DOE argued none of those actions materially changed compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; many were non‑actionable or procedurally untimely | Court held Campbell failed to show any adverse employment action or similarly situated comparators; disparate treatment claim fails |
| Title VII hostile work environment — employer liability for student/official harassment | Campbell argued student slurs and two comments by VP Jones ("ragging" and other remarks) created severe, pervasive sexual/racial hostility and DOE was liable for failing to stop it | DOE showed prompt investigations and disciplinary measures reasonably calculated to end harassment; Jones’s comments were isolated and not shown to be sexually motivated | Court held harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and DOE reasonably responded; hostile work environment claim fails |
| Title VII retaliation — protected activity and materially adverse action | Campbell argued DOE retaliated for her complaints via investigation and assignment to remedial math (and other acts) that would chill complaints | DOE argued its investigations and assignment had neutral, nondiscriminatory reasons (investigations triggered by multiple complaints; remedial assignment due to lack of music classes) and Campbell offered no evidence of pretext | Court assumed investigatory/assignment actions could be adverse but found DOE’s neutral reasons unrebutted; retaliation claim fails |
| Title IX — intentional discrimination and deliberate indifference | Campbell sought to hold DOE liable under Title IX for sex discrimination and for deliberate indifference to sexual harassment | DOE relied on Title VII analysis showing no actionable discrimination and showed reasonable responses to harassment | Court applied the same standards as Title VII and held Title IX claims fail for lack of intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (prima facie elements and McDonnell Douglas framework for disparate treatment)
- Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (definition of adverse employment action)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard: materially adverse acts that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (employer liability for third‑party harassment and requirement to take measures reasonably calculated to end harassment)
- Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2001) (prompt investigation as a reasonable response; employer may decline discipline after fair investigation)
- Lakeside‑Scott v. Multnomah County, 556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) (investigation of employee may constitute adverse action in retaliation context)
- EEOC v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc., 621 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010) (isolated/offhand comments insufficient for hostile work environment)
- Dominguez‑Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (sporadic teasing and isolated incidents do not establish hostile work environment)