AND · 29usc623:protected-activity
Exact element source
It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual, member or applicant for membership has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because such individual, member or applicant for membership has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623; Unicode character offsets [1750:2342] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d7414b39849853d6a6068539da731f835b09d9f238c028f95f2d0dd04fb6f667.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| opposition provisional; provisional (1 case) | Opposing an ADEA-unlawful practice; judicial good-faith/reasonableness limits apply. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · not counted |
| participation provisional; 2 observed cases | Charge, testimony, assistance or participation in ADEA investigation, proceeding or litigation. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 2 | Spratt v. Bellwood Public Library — 380 F. Supp. 3d 783 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc. — 898 F.3d 77 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoap v. City of Crossville — 321 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2018) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2018 — not reached (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Opposition or participation | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe court states doubt ("The Court is doubtful as to whether Shoap engaged in a protected activity") but rests the retaliation ruling on the absence of an adverse action. | no written or informal complaint of age discrimination, only general objection to a councilman; court "doubtful" but does not decide | Here, Shoap did not make any written complaint or file any grievance with Crossville asserting any rights relevant to the ADEA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [21909:22036] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.All that Shoap's evidence suggests is that he voiced general (if fervent) objection to Kerley.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [22304:22398] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de.In the end it does not matter, because this claim fails even if there were a protected activity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_321.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/321/0839-01; Unicode character offsets [22931:23027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee219aaf1280b9da9f84bccea93809598a76eb5608909d7a2172afb680dd40de. |
| Spratt v. Bellwood Public Library — 380 F. Supp. 3d 783 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Opposition or participation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded The pleaded retaliation allegation survived the motion to dismiss posture. | eeoc-age-discrimination-charge | Spratt alleges that Bellwood retaliated against her for filing an EEOC complaintSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0783-01; Unicode character offsets [6455:6535] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae65194fc22e806d299e7b218c92596a3be1c881f1451e66c47790b7cf1aad24.Spratt's Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges each element of a retaliation claim under the ADEA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0783-01; Unicode character offsets [7368:7467] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae65194fc22e806d299e7b218c92596a3be1c881f1451e66c47790b7cf1aad24. |
| Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc. — 898 F.3d 77 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Opposition or participation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | filing-eeoc-and-adu-charges | While on sick leave, Rivera filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Puerto Rico Department of Labor Antidiscrimination Unit ("ADU"), as well as a similar charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that she suffered from age, sex, and gender discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_898.jsonl#/f3d/898/0077-01; Unicode character offsets [3896:4185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be64c8b4debd470b0441ae1b9da004135e2b7606cc80df001bc6df2750d2e3d6.There is no dispute here that Rivera engaged in protected conduct when she filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC and ADU.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_898.jsonl#/f3d/898/0077-01; Unicode character offsets [30881:31010] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be64c8b4debd470b0441ae1b9da004135e2b7606cc80df001bc6df2750d2e3d6. |