Case Citator › Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC

Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
456 F.3d 1215
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2012
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC has been abrogated in part on the standard for adverse action in retaliation claims. All 31 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Tenth Circuit held in Bertsch v. Overstock.com that Haynes's requirement of a significant change in employment status could not govern retaliation claims after the Supreme Court adopted a possible-dissuasion test. That treatment is listed below. Later courts continued to use Haynes's separate rules on timely discrimination charges and retaliation causation.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

31 later cases cite Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Tenth Circuit held that Haynes's significant-change-in-employment-status test could no longer decide whether an action was materially adverse for a retaliation claim; the Supreme Court's possible-dissuasion test governed.

    Bertsch v. Overstock.com · Tenth Circuit · filed

    The district court erred in relying on a pre-Burlington Northern case, Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, 456 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2006), for the proposition that the disciplinary action taken against Ms. Bertsch was materially adverse only if it actually effected a significant change in her employment status, rather than Burlington Northern’s rule of possible dissuasion of an employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace