Jean G. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Company and Eastman Chemical Company
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Sixth Circuit also rejected Mattern's treatment of coworker retaliation. All 33 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below. Mattern's separate rule about review of a motions panel ruling continues to be cited.
33 later cases cite Jean G. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Company and Eastman Chemical Company; 33 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 Jean G. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Company and Eastman Chemical Company?
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 Supreme Court rejected Mattern's rule that Title VII retaliation requires an ultimate employment decision.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The Fifth and the Eighth Circuits have adopted a more restrictive approach. They employ an “ultimate employment decision” standard, which limits actionable retaliatory conduct to acts “ ‘such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.’” Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F. 3d 702, 707 (CA5 1997); see Manning v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 127 F. 3d 686, 692 (CA8 1997). ... We therefore reject the standards applied in the Courts of Appeals that have treated the antiretaliation provision as forbidding the same conduct prohibited by the antidiscrimination provision and that have limited actionable retaliation to so-called “ultimate employment decisions.” See supra, at 60.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The Sixth Circuit rejected Mattern's exclusion of coworker retaliation claims and held that an employer can be liable for such retaliation in appropriate circumstances.
Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. · Sixth Circuit · filed
In contrast, the Fifth and the Eighth Circuits have rejected coworker retaliation claims by narrowly defining what constitutes an “adverse employment action” under Title VII. ... Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that an “adverse action” must be an “ultimate employment decision,” such as hiring, compensating, promoting, granting leave, or firing, and that “[h]ostility from fellow employees, having tools stolen, and resulting anxiety, without more, do not constitute ultimate employment decisions, and therefore are not the required adverse employment actions”). ... We therefore join the majority of our sister circuits that have addressed this issue in recognizing that, in appropriate circumstances, Title VII permits claims against an employer for coworker retaliation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jean G. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Company and Eastman Chemical Company 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