From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
256 F.3d 864 (2001)
Facts
Antonio Sanchez (plaintiff) worked at a chain restaurant owned by Azteca Enterprises, Inc. (Azteca) (defendant) from October 1991 to July 1995. Sanchez was mocked by his male coworkers for being effeminate and not masculine. The male coworkers referred to Sanchez as “she” and “her,” said he carried a serving tray “like a woman,” and called him a “faggot” and “fucking female whore.” This verbal abuse occurred at least once a week and often several times a day. Sanchez reported the behavior to Azteca’s human-resources director, Arnie Serna, alleging that he had complained to the general manager many times and feared the harassment would continue to be ignored. A few months later, Sanchez got into a heated argument with an assistant manager. Sanchez walked off the job and was fired for leaving in the middle of his shift. Sanchez filed a lawsuit in a federal district court, alleging that he was subject to verbal harassment by male coworkers and a supervisor for being effeminate and not meeting the male stereotype and that Azteca retaliated against him by terminating him. The district court ruled for Azteca, concluding that there was no hostile work environment and that the alleged harassment did not occur because of sex. Sanchez appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gould, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.