The retaliation statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), provides, in pertinent part:
[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment ... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
|
Proving Retaliation
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under this statute, a plaintiff must show
(1) that he engaged in protected activity;
(2) an adverse employment action; and
(3) a causal connection between the activity and the adverse action.
Thompson v.. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 650 (4th Cir.2002);
Anderson v. G.D.C., Inc., 281 F.3d 452, 458 (4th Cir.2002). The Fourth Circuit has expansively interpreted what constitutes protected activity under the statute's participation clause, indicating that "the provision is meant to sweep broadly."
Glover v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir.1999)
(citing Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir.1997)).
To qualify as an "adverse employment action," the employer must have engaged in activity adversely affecting the "terms, conditions, or benefits of employment."
Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir.2001)
For Example -- Recent Decision
Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an
employee for opposing or complaining about an unlawful employment practice. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (a). To prove a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show she
was engaged in a protected action, the employer took adverse employment action
against her, and there was a causal connection between the protected action and
the adverse employment action. Karpel v.
Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1228 (4th Cir. 1998). Retaliation
claims are also subject to the McDonnell-Douglas analytical framework. Hawkins
v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 281 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000); Karpel,
134 F.3d at 1227-28. Once the prima facie case of retaliation has been proven,
the defendant must put forth a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the
adverse employment action. Nichols v.
Ashland Hosp. Corp., 251 F.3d 496, 502 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing McDonnell
Douglas, supra). The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show the
proffered reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.
Id.
The plaintiff must show that the proffered
reason is "'unworthy of credence' or [offer] other forms of
circumstantial evidence sufficiently probative of [retaliation]." Mereish,
359 F.3d at 336 (quoting
Texas
Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S.
248, 256, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101
S. Ct.
1089 (1981)).Greene v.
Swain
County
P'ship for Health, 342 F. Supp. 2d 442, 453 (D.N.C., 2004)
|