## Facts

- Shirley A. Breeden, an employee of Clark County School District, attended an October 21, 1994 meeting with her male supervisor and a male co-worker to review job applicants’ psychological evaluation reports.
- One report contained a sexually explicit remark (“making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon”), which the supervisor read aloud; the supervisor and co-worker chuckled after the co-worker said he would explain later.
- Breeden complained internally about the incident to the co-worker involved and to higher-level administrators.
- Breeden later filed charges with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and the EEOC, and then filed a Title VII action alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
- She claimed retaliation based on (1) adverse treatment for her internal complaint about the meeting, and (2) a punitive transfer allegedly triggered by her administrative charges and lawsuit.
- The transfer was implemented about 20 months after the administrative charges, and the district had considered the transfer before learning of the federal lawsuit.

## Issues

1. Whether Breeden’s internal complaint about the single meeting incident constituted protected opposition under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, including under a “reasonable belief” standard.
2. Whether Breeden produced evidence of a causal connection between her protected activity and the challenged transfer sufficient to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated summary judgment for the school district.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that Title VII protects opposition based on a reasonable belief that conduct is unlawful, but held that no reasonable person could believe the single incident constituted actionable sexual harassment.
- The Court held that Breeden failed to establish causation for the transfer claim given the 20-month gap and evidence the transfer was under consideration before the employer learned of the lawsuit.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII retaliation protection for “opposition” does not extend to complaints where no reasonable person could believe the challenged conduct violates Title VII, even if a “reasonable belief” standard applies.
- Hostile-environment harassment is actionable only when conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
- Isolated incidents and offhand comments, unless extremely serious, do not satisfy the severe-or-pervasive threshold.
- Temporal proximity alone may support causation only when the timing is very close; lengthy delays and evidence of independent, preexisting plans to take the challenged action undermine an inference of retaliatory motive at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a single, non-serious workplace incident could not reasonably be viewed as unlawful harassment for retaliation purposes and that the record did not support a causal link between protected activity and a later transfer, requiring summary judgment for the employer.


Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001)