Robin Anderson v. Crst International, Inc., 685 F. App'x 524

Robin Anderson sued CRST International, CRST Van Expedited (collectively CRST), and co-driver Eric Vegtel for sex discrimination under California FEHA and Title VII, and for retaliation under Title VII; district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
Anderson’s FEHA claims were based on conduct that occurred largely outside California.
Anderson alleged Vegtel created a sexually hostile work environment during multiple incidents over a three-week period while they were team drivers, and that CRST’s response was inadequate.
Anderson complained to CRST; CRST separated Anderson and Vegtel, allegedly sent an email listing female drivers, and allegedly prohibited Vegtel from driving with female co-drivers. Anderson contends CRST never investigated, failed to reassign her effectively, and stopped giving her work assignments.
Anderson sued Vegtel in his individual capacity (Title VII does not permit individual liability); she also claimed CRST fired her in retaliation for complaining.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the FEHA claims and against Vegtel, but reversed as to CRST on Title VII hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Extraterritorial application of FEHA	FEHA protects employees even if harassment occurred largely outside California	FEHA has no clear extraterritorial intent and does not apply outside CA	Affirmed for defendants — FEHA claims dismissed as extraterritorial
Title VII liability of individual supervisor (Vegtel)	Anderson sought relief against Vegtel individually	Title VII does not provide individual liability	Affirmed — no Title VII claim against Vegtel
Hostile work environment (Title VII)	Vegtel’s conduct was severe/persistent; CRST’s remedial steps were ineffective or made Anderson worse	CRST promptly separated parties, prohibited future pairing with male drivers, tried to reassign Anderson and had anti-harassment policies	Reversed as to CRST — sufficient evidence for jury on severity/pervasiveness and on inadequacy of employer remedy
Retaliation (Title VII)	Anderson made a prima facie claim: she complained and was thereafter deprived of assignments and terminated	CRST says Anderson abandoned job / failed to accept reassignment; any discharge was for non-retaliatory reasons	Reversed as to CRST — genuine dispute whether termination was retaliatory; case remanded

Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
N. Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury, 174 Cal. 1 (Cal. 1916) (state statutes presumptively not extraterritorial absent clear intent)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (objective/subjective hostile-work-environment standard)
Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991) (considerations for hostile-work-environment analysis)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (social context and totality of circumstances in harassment cases)
Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1995) (employer escapes liability if it takes effective remedial action)
Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) (isolated coworker incident rarely creates hostile environment if employer takes appropriate corrective action)
Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1993) (no individual liability under Title VII)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Univ. of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation claims require but-for causation)