Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass'n Inc., No. 93-15458

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: PREGERSON
• Citation: 41 F.3d 524
• Decision Date: 17 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-15458
• Parties: 66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 769, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,388 Victoria L. TRENT, aka Victoria L. Winebarger, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION INC.; Richard Burasco; Ross Dohlen, Defendants-Appellees.

Page 524

41 F.3d 524 66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 769,
65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,388 Victoria L. TRENT, aka Victoria L. Winebarger, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION INC.; Richard Burasco; Ross
Dohlen, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-15458. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 17, 1994 ^*.
Decided Dec. 1, 1994.

Page 525

Ian Christopherson, Burke & Christopherson, Las Vegas, NV, for plaintiff-appellant.

Renee R. Reuther, Jones, Jones, Close & Brown, Las Vegas, NV, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before: LAY, ^** PREGERSON, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Victoria Trent appeals the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants on her retaliatory discharge claim under Sec. 704 of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3(a) (1981). We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

On February 8, 1988, the Valley Electric Association ("VEA"), a rural public utility company, hired Victoria Trent to read residential electric meters. On July 20, 1988, she attended a mandatory safety meeting. VEA hired Ruralite Services, Inc. to conduct the meeting. During his presentation, the instructor from Ruralite used foul language and made a series of sexually offensive references. These included a description of the sexual experiences of linemen at a Nevada brothel. Trent was the only woman present at the lecture.

Trent complained about the offensive remarks to Richard Burasco, VEA's office manager. On August 19, 1988, Burasco asked Trent to put her complaint in writing. She submitted a written report to Ross Dohlen, VEA's general manager and later spoke with him about the safety meeting incident. When Trent remarked she "was not one of the boys," Dohlen replied that "for some purposes" she was. On August 31, 1988, Dohlen wrote to Ruralite complaining about the lecturer's offensive comments. On September 19, 1988, VEA fired Trent.

ANALYSIS

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). Trent challenges her dismissal under the "opposition clause" of Sec. 704 of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3(a) (1981). The clause makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee where the employee "has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter...." Courts have interpreted "unlawful employment

Page 526

practices" to include a panoply of actions involving discrimination and sexual harassment.

To succeed on a retaliation claim, Trent must first establish a prima facie case. E.E.O.C. v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1513 (9th Cir.1989). She must demonstrate (1) that she was engaging in a protected activity, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) that there was a causal link between her activity and the employment decision. Id. at 1513-14.

In granting summary judgment in favor of VEA, the district court concluded that Trent failed as a matter of law to establish the first element of a prima facie case. We disagree.

The district court, relying on Silver v. KCA, Inc., 586 F.2d 138 (9th Cir.1978), found that because Trent complained about the practice of an outside consultant, not her employer,...