Robin Potera-Haskins v. Geoffrey Gamble

447 F. App'x 813
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 16, 2011
Docket10-35778
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 447 F. App'x 813 (Robin Potera-Haskins v. Geoffrey Gamble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robin Potera-Haskins v. Geoffrey Gamble, 447 F. App'x 813 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robin Potera-Haskins (“Potera-Has-kins”) appeals the district court’s denial of a jury trial on her claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and its grant of summary judgment on her 42 U.S.C. § 1988 First Amendment retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Potera-Haskins was not entitled to a jury trial on her Title IX claim. With respect to monetary relief, she could recover no more than the liquidated damages she received, and a bench trial was therefore appropriate. See Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330, 1337 (9th Cir.1990).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Potera-Haskins’ First Amendment retaliation claim because her statements were made pursuant to her official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
447 F. App'x 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robin-potera-haskins-v-geoffrey-gamble-ca9-2011.