The plaintiff was a temporary production line worker.? ?Co-workers began making derogatory comments about his sexual orientation. ?The trainer for the production line was present when this occurred and joined in a few times. ?The plaintiff took a day off in response to the stress. ?The next day he went to HR about the hostile work environment.?? ?Two days later the employer terminated him on the grounds that he had failed to call his absence in an hour ahead of the shift. ?The plaintiff filed claims for retaliation and sexual harassment under Title VII and Oregon state law. The district court? granted summary judgment? to the employer but the Ninth Circuit reversed as to the retaliation claim.?? Remarkably, the panel held that Title VII protects against retaliation for raising a complaint of sexual orientation harassment. ?The court held that proximity between his complaint and his discharge was sufficient to create a factual dispute as to pretext. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to sexually hostile environment under Title VII because the plaintiff had failed to show the harassment was because he failed to conform to masculine? stereotypes.?? ?The? panel ?reversed ?the grant of summary judgment on the sexual orientation harassment claim under Oregon law. ?It held that Oregon would use the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defenses and remanded for the district judge to consider their applicability.?Dawson ?v. ?Entek? Intl., ?630 ?F.3d ?928 ?(1/10/11) (Bury (D. AZ), W. Fletcher, Fisher).