MacIntyre v. Carroll College

“Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is [a] form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX’s private cause of action.” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). “[A] plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of retaliation must first make out a prima facie case of retaliation…” Id. (citing Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]o make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only make a minimal threshold showing of retaliation.” Id.

MacIntyre, Carroll College’s previous golf coach, sued the school for Title IX retaliation when the school did not renew his contract after he reported gender discrimination within the college’s athletic department. Carroll College contended they could not renew the contract due to necessary budget cuts. MacIntyre appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Carroll College which found MacIntyre did not make out a prima facie case for a Title IX issue. “Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is [a] form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX’s private cause of action.” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). “[A] plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of retaliation must first make out a prima facie case of retaliation…” Id. (citing Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]o make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only make a minimal threshold showing of retaliation.” Id. The Court found that MacIntyre met this threshold reasoning that in Emelidi v. Univ. of Or., “the nonrenewal of an employment contract is comparably likely to deter a reasonable employee from reporting discrimination.” 673 F.3d at 1225 (9th Cir. 2012). REVERSED; REMANDED.