## Facts

- Nada Raad, an American citizen born and raised in Lebanon, is of Lebanese descent and Muslim faith.
- Raad earned strong undergraduate and graduate degrees, obtained Alaska teaching certification, and worked for several years as a substitute teacher for the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (the District).
- Teachers frequently requested Raad as a substitute, and she received favorable evaluations.
- Over three consecutive hiring cycles beginning in 1991, the District did not select Raad for full-time teaching positions.
- In connection with a full-time opening at Ryan Middle School, the District asserted that Raad’s accent would impair her effectiveness as a teacher, and it selected another candidate whom Raad claimed was less qualified.
- Raad contended the District used irregular or manipulated screening methods to keep her out of the full-time hiring pool, including undervaluing her grade point average and writing sample and creating or altering paperwork to make it appear competitive interviews occurred.
- After the third nonselection in August 1993, District staff reported to police that Raad made a statement they took as a bomb threat; Raad denied making a threat and claimed the report was false and motivated by bias.
- The District suspended Raad from substitute teaching for one year following the alleged threat.
- Raad sued under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on national origin (and also religion) and alleging retaliation tied to the District’s failure to hire her and its later discipline.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska granted summary judgment to the District. Raad appealed the dismissal of her Title VII disparate-treatment and retaliation theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the District on Raad’s Title VII disparate-treatment claims arising from the District’s repeated refusals to hire her for full-time teaching positions, including the District’s reliance on her accent and disputed hiring-process irregularities.
2. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Raad’s Title VII retaliation claims based on the later non-hiring decision(s) and the one-year suspension following the alleged bomb-threat report.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not correctly apply the summary-judgment standard because it failed to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Raad.
- Construing the record in Raad’s favor, the court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact existed on most of the appealed discrimination and retaliation claims, including whether the District’s stated reasons (such as concerns about Raad’s accent) were a cover for unlawful bias.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on all but one of the claims pursued on appeal, affirmed as to one claim, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, a court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party; it may not weigh evidence, choose among competing inferences, or decide credibility.
- Title VII disparate-treatment claims based on circumstantial evidence are commonly analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach: (1) prima facie case; (2) employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; (3) plaintiff’s showing that the reason is pretext.
- Evidence that an employer’s stated selection criteria were applied inconsistently, scored in a questionable way, or documented inaccurately can support an inference of pretext and defeat summary judgment.
- An employment decision based on an employee’s accent may constitute national origin discrimination where the accent does not materially interfere with job performance; disputes about whether it does are generally for the factfinder when supported by competing evidence.
- Title VII retaliation requires evidence of protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection; contested facts about timing, motive, and the truth of the employer’s stated justification can create a triable issue.

## Conclusion

Raad held that, when the record is read in the nonmovant’s favor, Raad presented enough evidence of possible pretext—through the District’s accent-based explanation, comparative qualifications evidence, and claimed procedural irregularities—and enough disputed facts about the later discipline to require a trial on most of her Title VII discrimination and retaliation theories, so summary judgment was largely reversed and the case remanded.


Raad v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, 323 F.3d 1185 (2003)