AND · 42usc1981:retaliatory-causation
Require a causal connection and the applicable ultimate but-for standard; knowledge plus temporal sequence alone does not necessarily prove causation. Boxill is a pleading decision and does not hold that its prima facie articulation replaces the ultimate burden.
Exact element source
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1981; Unicode character offsets [823:967] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e5aa212ab2f30dd84c80b0b228057e2c583768ee608c391e0ac73d92e609577.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _pleading accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element fails or survives purely on generic pleading sufficiency (conclusory allegations, group pleading, Rule 9(b) particularity), without the court reaching any substantive sub-question. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Boxill v. O’Grady — 935 F.3d 510 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| _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. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Mills v. Cellco Partnership — 376 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1981: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mills v. Cellco Partnership — 376 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial causation requirement for retaliatory injury | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The retaliation claim failed chiefly on causation (shifts, training, threats of discipline). The court also held the coachings and the miscoded-leave, shift-swap and scrutiny incidents not materially adverse (@44049..44424, @47451..48011) and accepted threats of discipline as potentially adverse (@45564..46196); retaliatory-adversity has no block. | no-comparison-with-non-complainers-no-increase-after-complaint-and-no-temporal-link | Ms. Mills alleges she complained to Mr. Gould several times throughout 2014 that he unfairly scheduled her and other black employees for a disproportionate number of undesirable weekend closing shifts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [38849:39050] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.While Ms. Mills indicated that African Americans, herself included, received more undesirable shifts than white employees, she never alleged or testified that she received more undesirable shifts than employees who had never complained about racial discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [39853:40117] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.In fact, Mr. Gould initially responded to her scheduling complaints by placing her in charge of scheduling for the store.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [40228:40349] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.The language of the coachings indicates that specific interactions with customers prompted the alleged threats of discipline, rather than Ms. Mills's engaging in protected activity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [46683:46864] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.But Ms. Mills's claim that she suffered this adverse employment action because she complained to Mr. Gould must fail; she presented no evidence, direct or circumstantial, showing a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [39588:39852] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e. |
| Boxill v. O’Grady — 935 F.3d 510 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Judicial causation requirement for retaliatory injury | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: All individual defendants; count: Section 1981 retaliation; subject: party=All individual defendants; count=Section 1981 retaliation Fails to connect any particular defendant’s materially adverse conduct to protected complaints. The result records §1981 only; the revived hostile-environment branch arises under equal protection, not the appealed §1981 claim. | retaliation/undifferentiated-officials | According to the complaint, Boxill reported her "ongoing harassment" to administrators and judges at FCMC-including Green and Shaw-several times between 2011 and 2013. She alleges that "[n]o administrator or Judge acted on these reports, but each discouraged [her] from action." In April 2013, the "Defendants began removing [her] responsibilities and diminishing [her] abilities to function as coordinator." Sometime thereafter, she "learned that Defendants had given a male subordinate a $14,000.00 per year increase in salary with no commensurate consideration of her contributions."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [1325:1911] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.Boxill has nevertheless failed to state a plausible retaliation claim against Brandt, Glaeden, Green, or Shaw. These allegations suffer from the same flaw: Boxill does not state facts specific to those Defendants. Her claims rest on broad, conclusory allegations that the "Defendants" diminished her job responsibilities; but she offers no facts to support a reasonable inference that any of these Defendants individually took such an action, much less that he or she did so in response to Boxill's protected speech.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [9032:9548] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.To survive dismissal, Boxill must allege that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) her exercise of that activity was known by the Defendant; (3) the Defendant thereafter took an action that was materially adverse to her; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Laster v. City of Kalamazoo , 746 F.3d 714, 730 (6th Cir. 2014).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [14122:14517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.As explained, Boxill's complaint does not plausibly allege that any Defendant took an adverse action against her because of her protected speech.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [14518:14663] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b. |