Connection lost
Server error
Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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: The appellate court reversed summary judgment for an employer in a hostile work environment case, finding sufficient evidence that pervasive, offensive conduct was based on sex and severe enough to alter employment conditions, and that the employer could be liable.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that sexually explicit, anti-female conduct, even if not directly targeting the plaintiff, can be “based on sex” and contribute to a hostile work environment. It also reinforces standards for employer liability based on supervisor knowledge.
Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 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
Plaintiff Julie Gallagher worked for C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHR) for four months, alleging a hostile work environment. She described the office as a “guys’ locker room” characterized by pervasive use of derogatory terms for women (e.g., “bitches,” “whores,” “cunts”), viewing of sexually explicit images, open pornographic magazines, and graphic sexual discussions by male co-workers. Specific incidents included a co-worker calling Gallagher a “bitch,” another referring to her as a “heifer” and “moo”ing at her, and a male co-worker exposing himself in a towel while discussing anal sex when Gallagher was the only female present. Gallagher complained frequently to her immediate supervisor, Greg Quast, who also witnessed much of the conduct and allegedly took little effective action, sometimes exacerbating the situation. CHR had anti-harassment policies and multiple reporting channels, including an anonymous hotline. Gallagher primarily reported to Quast, stating she feared retaliation if she used other channels and believed Quast was part of the problem. She eventually resigned. The district court granted summary judgment to CHR.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in granting summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claims by finding insufficient evidence that the harassment was (1) based on sex, (2) severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, and (3) that there was a basis for employer liability?
Yes. The appellate court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court err in granting summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claims by finding insufficient evidence that the harassment was (1) based on sex, (2) severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, and (3) that there was a basis for employer liability?
Conclusion
The case significantly clarifies that pervasive, sex-specific offensive conduct can form 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
Legal Rule
To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment, 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 l
Legal Analysis
The court found the district court's assessment flawed in three key areas. 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 e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Harassment can be “based on sex” even if not directed at