Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the Civil Rights Act for guidance in interpreting the employment discrimination provisions of ORS 659A. See, e.g., Portland State Univ. Chapter of Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors v. Portland State Univ., 352 Or. 697, 711, 291 P.3d 658, 666 (2012); Briede v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA Inc., No. 10-cv-649-HA, 2010 WL 4236929, at *3 (D.Or. Oct. 21, 2010); Conley v. City of Lincoln City, No. 02-cv-216-AS, 2004 WL 948427, at *13 (D.Or. Apr. 20, 2004) (collecting cases). Under Title VII, former employees can bring post-employment retaliation claims against their former employer if the action is related to or arises out of the employment relationship. Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir.1997); see also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 345, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds that Hoy can 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii (B) holding that postemployment retaliation against a former employee for filing an equal employment complaint is actionable under title vii (C) holding an adverse employment action based on denial or revocation of a security clearance is not actionable under title vii (D) recognizing that a claim of hostile environment sex discrimination is actionable under title vii (E) holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii