AND · 42usc2000e-2:retaliation
Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
Exact element source
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individualSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [128:237] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — not · waived (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| causal-link provisional; 5 observed cases | Whether the adverse action was caused by the protected activity. | 5 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 5; excluded context 0 | 5 | Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Martinelli v. Bancroft Chophouse, LLC — 357 F. Supp. 3d 95 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. — 384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| materially-adverse-action provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the employer's action would dissuade a reasonable worker (Burlington Northern). | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 2 | Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Beck v. Figeac Aero N. Am., Inc. — 382 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| pretext provisional; 3 observed cases | Whether the employer's stated reason for the action is a pretext for retaliation. | 3 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 3; excluded context 0 | 3 | Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Mahler v. First Dakota Title Ltd. P'ship — 931 F.3d 799 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); party: Officer Potter; count: midweek days off; subject: party=Officer Potter; count=midweek days off Adverse action assumed arguendo for this count; it is decided on pretext alone (its only ground, so not `scope alternative`). | seniority-based-scheduling-reason-unrebutted | The plaintiffs do not dispute that, following the reorganization, the Canine Unit suffered shortages of officers on the weekends.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [26072:26201] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Plaintiffs provide no evidence that they were forced to have days off in the middle of the week when other officers were not.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [26731:26856] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Even assuming that requiring employees to take days off in the middle of the week when they previously had at least one weekend day off could be considered an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that the Department’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for assigning weekdays off were pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [25681:26071] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1. |
| Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: rotating shifts; subject: count=rotating shifts | adverse-decision-announced-before-protected-activity | There is no dispute that plaintiffs engaged in a statutorily protected activity when they filed a complaint with the EEOC on April 21, 2003.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [19033:19173] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Plaintiffs do not dispute that the decision to rotate shifts was announced on March 6, 2003, a month and a half before they filed their EEOC complaint.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [20991:21142] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.In order to make out a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) the employer took an adverse action against him; and (3) there is a causal connection between the two.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [17204:17445] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Plaintiffs cannot show a causal connection between the shift changes that the entire unit faced and the filing of their EEOC complaint.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [20855:20990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1. |
| Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: post-charge investigations, training recommendations, single citizen-complaint allegation, extended leave pending investigation; subject: count=post-charge investigations, training recommendations, single citizen-complaint allegation, extended leave pending investigation | investigations-and-recommendations-without-discipline | Moreover, plaintiffs do not dispute that none of the investigations into their conduct that occurred after the reorganization have resulted in discipline or suspension.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [23026:23194] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.First, the allegation would only result in disciplinary action if Officer LaGrand were to receive two additional allegations at some point in the future.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [23336:23489] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Officer Wood was never even required to attend the class.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [24923:24980] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.This investigation did not occur until over a year and a half after the plaintiffs filed their EEOC complaint and a year after the first complaint was filed in this Court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [21499:21670] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.The mere initiation of an investigation into a plaintiffs conduct is not an adverse employment action when it has no effect on the plaintiffs employment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [22301:22454] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.None of these allegations are sufficient for plaintiffs’ retaliation claim to survive summary judgment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [20751:20854] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1. |
| Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — not · waived (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: waived; claim: (a)(1) The court also remarks that the record holds no evidence of protected activity, but the disposition is abandonment. | abandoned/claim-not-defended-at-summary-judgment | Although Raymours fails to specifically discuss Glenn’s retaliation claim, the record lacks any evidence whatsoever that could raise a genuine issue as to whether Glenn engaged in a protected activity prior to or contemporaneous with his termination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [39903:40153] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Therefore, I deem Glenn to have abandoned these claims by failing to address them in his response to Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [18438:18577] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f. |
| Martinelli v. Bancroft Chophouse, LLC — 357 F. Supp. 3d 95 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1) Two independent grounds: no materially adverse action (ostracism / rudeness is not enough) and no causal link; the block is keyed to causation, the ground the court develops for both the ostracism and the suspension. | ostracism-and-one-shift-suspension-after-rebuffing-and-reporting-manager | Martinelli has no specific evidence that the managers other than Brackett even knew about his complaint against Seznec.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_357.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/357/0095-01; Unicode character offsets [14757:14876] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e341ff3eb37061e227f597bc3535d6b9e36a2d9af8bbde04a17f6618a4b5caf3.First, it was apparently another manager who decided to suspend Martinelli, not Seznec, and that decision was made before the manager even knew about the comment Seznec made to plaintiff.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_357.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/357/0095-01; Unicode character offsets [15761:15948] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e341ff3eb37061e227f597bc3535d6b9e36a2d9af8bbde04a17f6618a4b5caf3.Second, both plaintiff and Michaels received the same suspension as a result of their failure to perform their closing duties on September 13, 2014, which suggests that Martinelli was not suspended for an improper purpose.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_357.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/357/0095-01; Unicode character offsets [15949:16171] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e341ff3eb37061e227f597bc3535d6b9e36a2d9af8bbde04a17f6618a4b5caf3.Mere temporal proximity, however, is insufficient to establish the requisite causal connection.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_357.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/357/0095-01; Unicode character offsets [14661:14756] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e341ff3eb37061e227f597bc3535d6b9e36a2d9af8bbde04a17f6618a4b5caf3.In summary, because Martinelli cannot establish a hostile work environment or that any of the alleged misconduct of Seznec or the other managers was causally linked to his protected activity, defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims will be allowed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_357.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/357/0095-01; Unicode character offsets [16172:16467] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e341ff3eb37061e227f597bc3535d6b9e36a2d9af8bbde04a17f6618a4b5caf3. |
| Beck v. Figeac Aero N. Am., Inc. — 382 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a) Only protected opposition and material adversity were contested; causation was not argued. The HR complaints were also held to be protected opposition. | probation-imposed-after-repeated-hr-complaints | Beck complained to the company's Human Resources Department ("HR") multiple times about Benaoum's conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_382.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/382/1170-01; Unicode character offsets [1606:1712] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bf0e94769a9c76f63453f558a56b227b214ef9156a48d4a1c1aac4c3a3426919.Subsequently, on April 7, Figeac placed Beck on probation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_382.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/382/1170-01; Unicode character offsets [1875:1933] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bf0e94769a9c76f63453f558a56b227b214ef9156a48d4a1c1aac4c3a3426919.A reasonable employee will find the action materially adverse when the action might dissuade the reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_382.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/382/1170-01; Unicode character offsets [9596:9760] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bf0e94769a9c76f63453f558a56b227b214ef9156a48d4a1c1aac4c3a3426919.The Court disagrees because probation is a negative disciplinary action an employer can take to dissuade an employee.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_382.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/382/1170-01; Unicode character offsets [10472:10589] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bf0e94769a9c76f63453f558a56b227b214ef9156a48d4a1c1aac4c3a3426919. |
| Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. — 384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1) | adverse-action-predates-the-complaint-and-decision-makers-unaware-of-it | On October 12, while HR was reviewing applications for the supervisor position, another laborer foreperson was assigned to "podium duty" instead of Henderson.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [6153:6311] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.Even if it did, Henderson testified that it occurred in February 2013, five months after Gilcoine denied him podium duty in October 2012.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [25066:25203] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.There is no evidence Gilcoine or the union stewards responsible for assigning podium duty knew about Henderson's complaint.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [25816:25939] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405."Causation moves forward, not backwards, and no protected conduct after an adverse employment action can serve as the predicate for a retaliation claim."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [25204:25357] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.This theory also fails to satisfy the causation element of the prima facie case.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [25735:25815] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405. |
| Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a) Knowledge plus close timing (charges Oct 1980, non-renewal May 1981) held insufficient where the conflict predated the charges. | discharge-soon-after-eeoc-charge-amid-preexisting-conflict | 13. On October 21, 1980, Turner filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that he had been discriminated against in terms of salary and other conditions of employment because of his race.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [5500:5724] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.39. The senior administrators at BSC were aware that Turner and Goetzman had filed charges with the EEOC before Turner and Goetzman were discharged.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [15388:15536] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Goetzman’s problems with requisitions and departmental assignment were a result of poor communication among the BSC administration and possibly personal animus, but not retaliation for earlier charges.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [26741:26942] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Although the firings followed closely on the heels of the bringing of charges, plaintiffs have failed to prove a causal connection.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [26609:26740] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.The EEOC charges came in the midst of a larger and more profound controversy, and though they may have added to the growing sense that Turner and Goetzman were troublemakers and not to be trusted, plaintiffs failed to prove that the filing of the charges was the cause of the school’s actions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [26943:27236] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8. |
| Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a); party: APC only; count: 2000e-3(a) retaliatory discharge; subject: party=APC only; count=2000e-3(a) retaliatory discharge | year-long-gap-and-decisionmaker-unaware | In June of 1990, Breech submitted an affidavit with the EEOC on behalf of another employee, Eric Young.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [16892:16995] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Upper management, which was responsible for Breech’s discharge, did not know about Breech’s submission of the affidavit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [17068:17188] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.In the present case, more than a year passed between the protected activity and the discharge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [40267:40361] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.(1) that he engaged in a statutorily protected expression, (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there is a causal relation between the protected expression and the adverse action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [38762:38968] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.where a substantial period of time has elapsed between the two events — engagement in the protected activity and the adverse employment action — the causal connection is less likely to exist absent evidence demonstrating a connection between the two events.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [40009:40266] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.he has not demonstrated a causal link between his filing of the affidavit and his discharge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [39692:39784] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf. |
| Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: 2000e-3(a) retaliation claim (demotion; failure to reinstate); subject: count=2000e-3(a) retaliation claim (demotion; failure to reinstate) Retaliation prima facie case also assumed; resolved on the same pretext analysis as discrimination, with timing (reasons given five days before the first protected activity) as an extra point. | adverse-decision-communicated-before-protected-activity | On February 27, 2013, before Dr. Hiatt chose an option, her attorney sent DU a letter claiming DU’s request for Dr. Hiatt to leave her position as Training Director amounted to sex discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [6684:6880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Kent and Dr. Palmateer initially gave Dr. Hiatt the reasons for her demotion in their February 22, 2013 meeting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [30590:30706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.For retaliation claims, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would .have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18900:19165] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.DU could not retaliate for Dr. Hiatt’s protected activity until she had engaged in such activity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [31017:31114] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt cannot, therefore, create a triable issue that DU’s reasons for any adverse employment actions were pretextual for sex discrimination or retaliation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [41719:41878] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| Mahler v. First Dakota Title Ltd. P'ship — 931 F.3d 799 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a) The employer's reason and the pretext ruling belong to the § 2000e-3(a) retaliation claim (Part II of the opinion); Flash had recorded them as the discrimination claim's employer-reason and pretext, which the court never reached (that claim was waived). The prima facie case of retaliation, including protected activity, is assumed. | termination-after-harassment-reports-with-documented-prior-micromanagement-complaints | Mahler can prove this is pretextual by showing that it has no basis in fact or that a prohibited reason more likely motivated First Dakota to terminate her.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [9995:10151] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.In mid-May, Mahler reported sexual harassment to Rees on behalf of Archer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [3304:3378] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.On June 15, Anderson terminated Mahler, replacing her with Dondelinger.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [4579:4650] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.First Dakota claims it terminated Mahler because she repeatedly micromanaged and interfered with other employees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [9881:9994] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.Multiple employees complained that Mahler micromanaged and interfered with their work.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [10846:10932] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.Before her 2015 protected activity, Anderson gave Thoelke and Dondelinger permission to terminate Mahler for contacting the Register of Deeds and interfering with Dondelinger's job.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [10933:11114] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.Mahler's history of engaging in protected conduct since 2014 without repercussion also supports First Dakota's proffered reason.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [11578:11706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.Assuming Mahler has established a prima facie case, she has not demonstrated pretext.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [9795:9880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a.Because of the substantial evidence in the record supporting First Dakota's proffered reason, Mahler has failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to pretext.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [11707:11867] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8dacc83ce7e502f47d50a01ce4f274c8e9529a0841652cd8d421c35b43d57a. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In order to make out a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) the employer took an adverse action against him; and (3) there is a causal connection between the two.
Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
In order to make out a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) the employer took an adverse action against him; and (3) there is a causal connection between the two.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [17204:17445] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
interpretation
The mere initiation of an investigation into a plaintiffs conduct is not an adverse employment action when it has no effect on the plaintiffs employment.
Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
The mere initiation of an investigation into a plaintiffs conduct is not an adverse employment action when it has no effect on the plaintiffs employment.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [22301:22454] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
interpretation
For retaliation claims, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would .have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
For retaliation claims, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would .have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18900:19165] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
interpretation
DU could not retaliate for Dr. Hiatt’s protected activity until she had engaged in such activity.
Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
DU could not retaliate for Dr. Hiatt’s protected activity until she had engaged in such activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [31017:31114] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
interpretation
(1) that he engaged in a statutorily protected expression, (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there is a causal relation between the protected expression and the adverse action.
Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
(1) that he engaged in a statutorily protected expression, (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there is a causal relation between the protected expression and the adverse action.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [38762:38968] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.
interpretation
where a substantial period of time has elapsed between the two events — engagement in the protected activity and the adverse employment action — the causal connection is less likely to exist absent evidence demonstrating a connection between the two events.
Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
where a substantial period of time has elapsed between the two events — engagement in the protected activity and the adverse employment action — the causal connection is less likely to exist absent evidence demonstrating a connection between the two events.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [40009:40266] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.