Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

summary judgmentharassment
defendantsummary judgmentwillharassment

Related Cases

Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F.Supp.2d 951, 240 Ed. Law Rep. 147
View Case »
Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. National Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 588 F.3d 908, 2010-1 Trade Cases P 76,875
View Case »
Cheong v. Antablin, 16 Cal.4th 1063, 946 P.2d 817, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8851
View Case »
Steinberg v. Hoshijo, 88 Hawai’i 10, 960 P.2d 1218, 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,445
View Case »
Smith v. Xerox Corp., 196 F.3d 358, 81 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 343, 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 46,193
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Crawford v. Davis, 109 F.3d 1281, 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,579, 117 Ed. Law Rep. 90

Facts

Issue

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that while the university officials were not entitled to qualified immunity for certain claims, they were not liable under a respondeat superior theory.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's denial of summary judgment to UCA and defendants Thompson and Williams in their official capacities with respect to Ms. Crawford's respondeat superior claim, and we affirm the district court's judgment in all other respects.

Who won?

The court's decision was mixed; it affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the claims against the university officials regarding their failure to train and participation in the harassment, allowing those claims to proceed. However, it reversed the denial of summary judgment for the respondeat superior claim, indicating that the university officials were not liable under that theory. Thus, the prevailing party on the respondeat superior claim was the university officials, while Crawford prevailed on the other claims.

The court's decision was mixed; it affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the claims against the university officials regarding their failure to train and participation in the harassment, allowing those claims to proceed. However, it reversed the denial of summary judgment for the respondeat superior claim, indicating that the university officials were not liable under that theory.

You must be