Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Brief Binder Hedum V Starbucks Co

    Uploaded by

    REBECCA LAVELLE
    The document lists numerous legal cases and statutes cited in the plaintiff's document. Some of the key cases cited include: - McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which established a framework for analyzing employment discrimination claims. - Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, which held an employee can show pretext directly or indirectly. - Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., which held an employer only needs to provide one legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse action. - Hardie v. Legacy Health System, which considered a "mixed motive" discrimination claim under Oregon's retaliation statute. The document also lists

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Brief Binder Hedum V Starbucks Co

    Uploaded by

    REBECCA LAVELLE
    45 views4 pages
    The document lists numerous legal cases and statutes cited in the plaintiff's document. Some of the key cases cited include: - McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which established a framework for analyzing employment discrimination claims. - Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, which held an employee can show pretext directly or indirectly. - Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., which held an employer only needs to provide one legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse action. - Hardie v. Legacy Health System, which considered a "mixed motive" discrimination claim under Oregon's retaliation statute. The document also lists

    Original Title

    Brief Binder Hedum v Starbucks Co

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document lists numerous legal cases and statutes cited in the plaintiff's document. Some of the key cases cited include: - McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which established a framework for analyzing employment discrimination claims. - Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, which held an employee can show pretext directly or indirectly. - Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., which held an employer only needs to provide one legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse action. - Hardie v. Legacy Health System, which considered a "mixed motive" discrimination claim under Oregon's retaliation statute. The document also lists

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    45 views4 pages

    Brief Binder Hedum V Starbucks Co

    Uploaded by

    REBECCA LAVELLE
    The document lists numerous legal cases and statutes cited in the plaintiff's document. Some of the key cases cited include: - McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which established a framework for analyzing employment discrimination claims. - Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, which held an employee can show pretext directly or indirectly. - Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., which held an employer only needs to provide one legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse action. - Hardie v. Legacy Health System, which considered a "mixed motive" discrimination claim under Oregon's retaliation statute. The document also lists

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Authorities cited in your document

    From hedum-v-starbucks-corp.pdf

    Cases

    Hardie v. Legacy Health System


    167 Or. App. 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 78 times
    In Hardie v. Legacy Health Sys., 167 Or.App. 425, 6 P.3d 531, 536-37 (2000), partially superseded by statute on
    other grounds, the court considered a "mixed motive" discrimination claim under a similar retaliation statute,
    Or. Rev. Stat § 659.410(1), which makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who
    invokes the workers' compensation system.

    Hollins v. Atlantic Company, Inc.


    188 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 499 times
    Holding that "[s]atisfactory ratings in an overall evaluation, although lower than a previous evaluation, will
    not constitute an adverse employment action where the employee receives a merit raise"

    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.


    477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 223,395 times
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if
    the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

    Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union


    439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 859 times
    Holding eight month gap insufficient to support an inference of retaliatory motive under facts presented

    Coszalter v. City of Salem


    320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 717 times
    Holding that "severe retaliatory actions" including "campaigns of harassment and humiliation" could support
    a § 1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation

    Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc.


    150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,084 times
    Holding that pretext is shown if other employees with similar qualifications are treated more favorably

    Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio


    475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 107,501 times
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is
    reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have
    harmed" them

    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green


    411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 49,600 times
    Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice
    may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

    McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp.


    360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 894 times
    Holding that causation was not established where there was a one-and-a-half year gap between protected
    activity and adverse action

    1
    Pullom v. U.S. Bakery
    477 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Or. 2007) Cited 17 times
    Finding discipline, including counseling and two written notices for attendance- related problems, was
    evidence that plaintiff was not meeting legitimate expectations

    Spees v. Willamina School District 30J


    Case No. 03-1425-KI (D. Or. Oct. 19, 2004) Cited 2 times
    Following Yeager to allow an OFLA claim

    Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co.


    350 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 522 times
    Holding hostility and temporal proximity are highly probative of pretext

    Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine


    450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,302 times
    Holding that an employee may establish pretext "either directly, by persuading the court that a discriminatory
    reason more likely motivated the employer, or indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered
    explanation is unworthy of credence"

    Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.


    281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,637 times
    Holding that summary judgment was appropriate even where the decision-maker's reason is "foolish or trivial
    or even baseless"

    Yartzoff v. Thomas
    809 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 828 times
    Holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action

    Bodett v. Coxcom, Inc.


    366 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 184 times
    Holding that evidence of pretext "must be `specific' and `substantial'" to create a triable issue of fact

    Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis


    225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,213 times
    Holding that the forcible relocation of plaintiff's laboratory space more than qualified as an adverse
    employment action

    Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l


    297 Or. 10 (Or. 1984) Cited 146 times
    Holding that where an adequate existing remedy protects the interests of society an additional remedy of
    wrongful discharge is not available

    Friendship Auto v. Bank of Willamette Valley


    300 Or. 522 (Or. 1986) Cited 23 times
    In Friendship Auto, the defendant bank, which had a flooring arrangement to finance the plaintiff's inventory,
    seized the plaintiff's checking account to offset anticipated losses under the flooring arrangement.

    Hedum v. Starbucks Corp.


    546 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D. Or. 2008) Cited 5 times

    2
    Kolstad v. Am. Dental Assn
    527 U.S. 526 (1999) Cited 1,385 times
    Holding that an employer may avoid punitive damages under § 1981a if it has made good-faith efforts to
    prevent discrimination in the workplace

    Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc.


    192 Or. App. 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 26 times

    Messer v. Portland Adventist Medical Center


    707 F. Supp. 449 (D. Or. 1989) Cited 6 times
    Rejecting claim of wrongful discharge in which plaintiff alleged she was discharged because of her race,
    national origin, or religion

    Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc.


    797 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 501 times
    Holding that summary judgment was precluded where plaintiffs alleged in their declarations that they were
    "the only persons within their respective departments who were dismissed during the . . . layoffs"

    Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp.


    103 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 742 times
    Holding that comments such as "old timers" and "we don't necessarily like grey hair" do not necessarily
    defeat summary judgment in age-discrimination cases

    Payne v. Apollo College-Portland, Inc.


    327 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (D. Or. 2004) Cited 10 times
    Applying Title VII elements to state law claim for retaliation brought under ORS 659A.030(f)

    Snead v. Metropolitan Property Cas. Ins. Co.


    237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 558 times
    Holding Title VII analysis applies in ADA case

    Wall v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.


    718 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 77 times
    Holding district court's denial of untimely jury demand not an abuse of discretion where counsel's
    inadvertence was the only reason shown

    Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.


    26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 1,165 times
    Holding an employer is required to proffer only "a" legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse
    employment action

    Williams v. Federal Express Corporation


    211 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (D. Or. 2002) Cited 20 times

    Statutes

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

    42 U.S.C. § 1981a
    Finding that "additional remedies under Federal law are needed to deter unlawful harassment and intentional
    discrimination in the workplace"

    3
    42 U.S.C. § 2000e
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

    Other potential authorities

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.040

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.730

    Or. Admin. R. 839-006

    2007 WL 963446

    You might also like