Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Terrance WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and Charter Communications, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Terrance Walker was terminated as a Direct Sales Representative at Charter Communications, Inc. following a series of incidents during which Charter claims Walker behaved unprofessionally. Walker sued Charter under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and analogous Nevada law 1 , alleging race discrimination and retaliation. Charter successfully moved for summary judgment on all of Walker’s claims.2 Walker appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse the grant of summary judgment on the race discrimination claims but affirm on the retaliation claims, and remand for further proceedings.
The conflicting accounts about whether Walker actually engaged in the unprofessional conduct alleged by Charter create a genuine issue of material fact whether Charter discriminated against Walker on the basis of his race. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate on these claims.
As for Walker’s retaliation claim, his only “protected activities” under Title VII were his complaints of race discrimination to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”) and to Charter, via its internal EthicsPoint reporting system. See Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir. 2003). His oral complaint to his supervisor was not protected because it did not identify a discriminatory practice. See E.E.O.C. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 1983).
And, most – if not all – of the relevant decision-makers recommended or approved Walker’s termination before they learned of his complaint to the NERC. Accordingly, Walker cannot establish a causal link between his protected activities and Charter’s termination, a necessary element of a prima facie case. See Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED; each party to bear its own costs on appeal.
FOOTNOTES
1. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330, 613.340.
2. See Walker v. Charter Commc’ns, No. 3:15-cv-00556-RCJ-VPC, 2017 WL 5957208 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-15138
Decided: October 31, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)