Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Clark County School District v. Breeden

United States Supreme Court
532 U.S. 268 (2001)


Facts

In October 1994, Shirley Breeden (plaintiff), an employee of the Clark County School District (the District) (defendant), met with a male supervisor and another male employee to go over the psychological evaluation reports of several job applicants. One of the reports included a sexually explicit comment made by the applicant. Breeden’s supervisor read the comment aloud and indicated he did not understand its meaning. The other male employee told the supervisor he would explain the comment later, and both men laughed. Breeden later complained about this exchange to the male employee who made the comment, the employee’s supervisor, and two of the District’s assistant superintendents. In 1997, Breeden was transferred to a different position within the District. Breeden filed a retaliation claim against the District under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), alleging she was punished for the complaints she made to personnel several years earlier and for initiating a suit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The district court granted summary judgment for the District, but the court of appeals reversed. The District petitioned for review by the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.