Background
Steven Crowe, a bisexual police officer, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his employer, the Department of the Army. Crowe alleged disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty-four. The district court had previously found that Crowe had not failed to exhaust administrative remedies on these pretermination claims, but affirmed summary judgment on his termination claims in a separate published opinion.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. For the discrimination claim, the court found Crowe satisfied the fourth element of a prima facie case because a co-worker referred to him with a homophobic slur shortly before management initiated an investigation and removed his police powers. The court noted that the supervisor recruited the officer who had directed the slurs to conduct the investigation, suggesting subordinate bias. For the retaliation claim, the court found a causal link between Crowe’s protected activity of reporting harassment and contacting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the subsequent adverse employment actions. Regarding the hostile work environment claim, the court held that the district court erred by treating the slur as isolated utterances rather than considering the totality of circumstances, including the frequency and severity of the conduct.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the district court for trial on the pretermination claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The court clarified that the plaintiff’s termination claim remains barred by the law of the case from a previous ruling.