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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| abandoned/claim-not-defended-at-summary-judgment | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — applied/procedural | |
| causal-link/adverse-decision-announced-before-protected-activity | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not | |
| causal-link/discharge-soon-after-eeoc-charge-amid-preexisting-conflict | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not | |
| causal-link/year-long-gap-and-decisionmaker-unaware | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — not | |
| materially-adverse-action/investigations-and-recommendations-without-discipline | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not | |
| materially-adverse-retaliation | Materially adverse action (one that well might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge) causally connected to protected activity | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| pretext/adverse-decision-communicated-before-protected-activity | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not | |
| pretext/seniority-based-scheduling-reason-unrebutted | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | 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 | materially-adverse-action/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. |
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | 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`). | pretext/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. |
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | 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 | causal-link/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. |
| /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 | 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. |
| /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 | 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. | causal-link/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. |
| /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 | 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 | causal-link/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. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | 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. | pretext/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. |
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.
/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007
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.
/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007
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.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
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.
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
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.
/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997
(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.
/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997
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.