green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wigent v. Science Applications International Corp.
Leidos also cites the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Jermy v. Jones, 243 F.3d 548 , at *1 (9th Cir.2000); which referred to a quote in Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir.2000), which stated “transferring an employee where salary is unaffected do[es] not constitute [an] adverse employment action[ ].” Id. (citing Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.1996)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pieszak v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In a retaliation claim, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing “(1) involvement in a protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action and (3) a causal link between the two.” Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.2000); accord Wallis, 26 F.3d at 891 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joanne Fielder v. Ual Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Dba United Airlines, Defendantappellee
(2×)
Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 Draper v. Coeur Rochester Inc. , 147 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1998). 20 A Plaintiff's Brief at 23. 21 Draper, 147 F.3d at 1109 . 22 Montero v. AGCO Corp., 192 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 1999). 23 Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir. 1994). 24 Id. (quoting Brady v. Elixir Industries, 242 Cal. Rptr. 234 , 328 (Ct. App. 1987) (emphasis in original)). 25 See Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781, 785 (1996). 26 Delaware State College v. Ricks , 449 U.S. 250 (1981). 27 Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082, 1092-93 …
cited
Cited "see"
White v. AKDHC, LLC
See Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that termination constitutes an adverse employment action for Title VII purposes).
discussed
Cited "see"
Black v. City & County of Honolulu
See Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082 , 1092 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (“In any ease, Fuller does not establish a cause of action that is separate *1056 from that for a hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment.”)- Therefore, Black cannot maintain an independent cause of action for failure to remedy harassment.
discussed
Cited "see"
White v. MILWAUKEE WIRE PRODUCTS
See Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082, 1086-87, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000) (coworker placed his hand on plaintiffs stomach and, a few minutes after she pushed him away, positioned himself behind her chair, boxed the chair against her console, and forced his hand underneath her sweater and bra to fondle her bare breast).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aybike Kortan v. California Youth Authority Albert Atesalp I.R. Schulman Manual Carbajal
(2×)
Yartzoff, 809 F.2d at 1376 (quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added); accord Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 214 F.3d 1082, 1094 (9th Cir. June 5, 2000); see also Steiner, 25 F.3d at 1465 (holding that performance evaluation with only three below average ratings out of seven categories was sufficient adverse employment decision to create prima facie case of retaliation).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patricia A. Brooks
v.
City of San Mateo, a Municipal Corporation San Mateo Police Department John Stangl, Chief of Police Steven Selvaggio
v.
City of San Mateo, a Municipal Corporation San Mateo Police Department John Stangl, Chief of Police Steven Selvaggio
98-15818.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 5, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
214 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000)
PATRICIA A. BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation; SAN MATEO POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN STANGL, Chief of Police; STEVEN SELVAGGIO, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 98-15818
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted May 14, 1999
Filed June 5, 2000
1
NOTE: OPINION WITHDRAWN. SEE OPINION AT 229 F.3d 917.