## Facts

- Go Daddy hired Youssef Bouamama, a Muslim of Moroccan national origin, in 2001 as a technical support representative; he became full-time and received positive technical-performance feedback despite some customer complaints about demeanor.
- Bouamama testified that supervisors questioned him about his religion and national origin and made derogatory remarks about Muslims.
- Bouamama reported certain remarks internally to human resources.
- Bouamama was promoted to a sales manager–type role; in 2003, management eliminated that role and created sales-supervisor positions.
- After interviewing, Bouamama was not selected for a sales-supervisor position and was told he could return to his prior customer-service role.
- On April 7, 2003, Bouamama alleged a supervisor made further derogatory comments tied to his religion and national origin; he complained to HR.
- On April 17, 2003, Bouamama went to the EEOC to report the demotion/non-selection and discriminatory comments; that same day, Go Daddy terminated him and did not allow him to return to his prior position.
- The EEOC sued under Title VII alleging discrimination and retaliation; a jury found for the EEOC on the claim that Bouamama was terminated in retaliation for protected activity.
- Go Daddy moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 59(a); the district court denied both.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported a finding that Bouamama engaged in Title VII “protected activity” by complaining to HR and the EEOC about religion- and national origin–based conduct.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported a causal link between the protected activity and Bouamama’s termination.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial under Rule 59(a).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Go Daddy’s Rule 50(b) motion and upheld the retaliation verdict.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could find Bouamama engaged in protected activity by opposing conduct he reasonably and in good faith believed violated Title VII.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could infer causation from the same-day timing of the EEOC complaint and termination and the reversal of the earlier option to return to his prior job.
- The court affirmed the denial of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion because the verdict was supported by the evidentiary record.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII protects employees from retaliation for opposing practices the employee reasonably and in good faith believes are unlawful under Title VII, even if the challenged conduct is later found not to violate Title VII.
- Internal complaints to human resources and external complaints to the EEOC may constitute protected activity when they communicate opposition to discrimination based on protected characteristics such as religion or national origin.
- Causation in retaliation cases may be inferred from very close temporal proximity between protected activity and an adverse employment action, especially when coupled with changed treatment inconsistent with prior assurances.
- Judgment as a matter of law is improper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, a reasonable jury could reach the verdict.
- A new trial under Rule 59(a) is warranted only in limited circumstances (e.g., verdict against the clear weight of the evidence or resulting in a miscarriage of justice); denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the EEOC’s retaliation judgment because the evidence permitted a reasonable finding that Bouamama’s complaints about religion- and national origin–related remarks were protected activity and that his same-day termination after contacting the EEOC supported an inference of retaliatory causation; the district court’s denial of JMOL and a new trial was affirmed.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009)