Judicial causation requirement for retaliatory injury

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.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
VariantDescriptionMerits instance blocksDistinct casesExample cases (up to 3 per group)
retaliation/undifferentiated-officials1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0
1/f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019Judicial causation requirement for retaliatory injurynot
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.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations