From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
132 F.3d 848 (1998)
Facts
Sandra Rodriguez-Hernandez (Rodriguez) (plaintiff) worked for Occidental International (defendant). During the first four years of her employment, she received positive feedback on her work and received two promotions. Eventually, her job required her to interact with Edwin Miranda-Velez (Miranda) (defendant), an executive for one of Occidental’s biggest clients. Miranda made several sexual advances toward Rodriguez. Rodriquez complained to her superiors about Miranda’s behavior. However, Occidental refused to intervene and stressed that Miranda’s company was an important client. After Rodriguez threatened to directly report Miranda’s behavior to his company, Rodriguez was suspended and eventually dismissed from her job. Rodriguez filed a Title VII action in federal court. At trial, the defense sought to introduce a plethora of evidence relating to Rodriguez’s sexual history. Mainly, the defense asserted that Rodriguez engaged in affairs with married men, was a lesbian, had a venereal disease, and made advances toward Miranda. The trial-court judge ruled that only evidence relating to Miranda and Rodriguez’s work was admissible, barring the remaining evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. The jury found for Rodriguez, and Occidental appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 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.
