Broska v. Henderson Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A postal worker alleged his supervisors retaliated against him with intense scrutiny after he filed an EEOC complaint. The court held that increased supervision, without more, is neither a materially adverse employment action nor severe or pervasive harassment sufficient to support a Title VII retaliation claim.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies the two paths for a Title VII retaliation claim in the Sixth Circuit: showing either a “materially adverse employment action” or “severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment.” It sets a high bar for what constitutes actionable harassment, distinguishing it from mere workplace annoyances.
Broska v. Henderson Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
James Broska, a white postal worker, filed an EEOC complaint alleging racial discrimination by his supervisor. After the complaint was settled, Broska alleged his supervisors retaliated against him. The primary allegation was that the supervisors began to scrutinize his work with far more intensity and criticism than other employees, frequently standing directly behind him while he worked and following him on his route. Other alleged acts included a delay in removing a warning letter from his file, a delay in a cash advance, and a written reprimand. Broska also claimed in his affidavit that these actions resulted in a loss of overtime opportunities exceeding $16,000. He supported his claims with affidavits from six co-workers who confirmed the heightened level of scrutiny. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding Broska had not demonstrated an “adverse employment action.” Broska appealed, arguing the conduct constituted both an adverse employment action and severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Title VII, does heightened workplace supervision and criticism, without more, constitute either a materially adverse employment action or severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under Title VII, does heightened workplace supervision and criticism, without more, constitute either a materially adverse employment action or severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation?
Conclusion
This case illustrates the judiciary's effort to police the boundary between actionable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repr
Legal Rule
To establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation, a plaintiff Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dol
Legal Analysis
The Sixth Circuit analyzed the retaliation claim under the two distinct prongs Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A Title VII retaliation claim requires either a “materially adverse employment