Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White rejected Robinson's requirement that Title VII retaliation affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment. Boscarello v. Audio Video Systems, Inc. later criticized that construction. Other readable opinions applied Robinson's unaffected holdings or reported Burlington Northern's decision. The text of one citing opinion could not be retrieved, so it remains unread.
531 later cases cite Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh; 94 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 93 of them have been read, and the text of 1 citing opinion could not be retrieved, so it remains unread. 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 Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh?
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 Robinson's rule that Title VII retaliation must affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment, holding that the antiretaliation provision reaches materially adverse harm beyond the workplace.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The Sixth Circuit has thus joined those Courts of Appeals that apply the same standard for retaliation that they apply to a substantive discrimination offense, holding that the challenged action must “resul[t] in an adverse effect on the ‘terms, conditions, or benefits’ of employment.” Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F. 3d 858, 866 (CA4 2001); see Robinson v. Pittsburgh, 120 F. 3d 1286, 1300 (CA3 1997). ... We cannot agree. ... Thus, purpose reinforces what language already indicates, namely, that the antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The court criticized Robinson's former adverse-employment-action requirement as a misinterpretation of Title VII that the Supreme Court rejected.
Boscarello v. Audio Video Systems, Inc. · E.D. Va. · filed
Prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Burlington, some courts misinterpreted Title VII to require more than simply an adverse action, requiring instead an adverse employment action to plead a retaliation claim. See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1301 (3d Cir.1997), abrogated by Burlington, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405. In Burlington, the Supreme Court rejected that construction, holding that the retaliation provisions in Title VII are not limited to actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh 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