Employment Law

Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp. — Study Notes

978 F.2d 1529 (9th Cir. 1996)

Study notes for Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

An employer violates the ADA by retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activities related to disability discrimination.
Professor Notes

This case is significant in the realm of employment law, particularly regarding the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A key aspect of the Ninth Circuit's decision was the recognition of the chilling effect that retaliation can have on employees who engage in protected activities such as reporting discrimination. Professors may emphasize the importance of establishing a prima facie case for retaliation, showing that adverse employment actions occurred as a direct response to such reporting.

Additionally, the case serves as an important reminder of the scrutiny that courts will apply to employer actions that may appear retaliatory following a report of discrimination. Professors should highlight the balancing act employers must navigate in maintaining workplace standards while ensuring compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, emphasizing that retaliation claims can arise even from subtle actions like performance evaluations.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What are the elements of a prima facie case for retaliation under the ADA?
  2. 2How did the court determine the employer's motives in this case?
  3. 3What types of evidence are considered in retaliation claims?
  4. 4Can an employee be held liable for bringing forth a claim if it turns out they were not discriminated against?
  5. 5What impact does this case have on employer policies regarding employee complaints?
Mnemonic Device

RAIDER - Retaliation Actions in Discrimination ER's Response.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteThis case further clarifies retaliation standards but focuses on a broader interpretation of adverse actions, while Sever targets specific actions post-disability complaints.
Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co.Reed involved claims of discrimination based on gender, differentiating from disability, focusing on the protected class involved in the retaliation claims.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Protecting employees from retaliation encourages reporting of discriminatory practices, fostering a safer and more equitable workplace.

Against the Rule

Employer liability for retaliation may deter legitimate performance evaluations, leading to a potential reduction in overall workplace productivity.

Class Discussion Points
  • How can employers effectively balance performance evaluations with the risk of retaliation claims?
  • What role does intent play in establishing retaliation claims?
  • How do the outcomes of this case influence workplace culture regarding discrimination complaints?
Exam Angle

Students may be asked to analyze the legal standards for retaliation claims under the ADA and assess how Sever's situation fits within those standards, using this case as a precedent.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.