Title VII Prima Facie Cases
Title VII Prima Facie Cases

Author: Landmark Publications

Publisher:

Published: 2019-08-21

Total Pages: 546

ISBN-13: 9781686803505

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss the elements of a Title VII prima facie case. Volume 1 covers decisions issued by the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Title VII forbids (i) employment practices that discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and (ii) retaliation against an employee for opposing adverse actions that she reasonably suspects to be unlawful under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 62-64, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006); Boyer-Liberto, 786 F.3d at 276-77, 281. * * * A plaintiff may prove that an employer took action with discriminatory or retaliatory intent through direct evidence or through the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243, 249 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). Under the burden-shifting framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing: "(1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer acted adversely against her; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action." See Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220, 229 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 218 (4th Cir. 2007)). After the prima facie showing is made, "[t]he burden then shifts to the [employer] to show that its purportedly retaliatory action was in fact the result of a legitimate non-retaliatory reason." Foster, 787 F.3d at 250. "If the employer makes this showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to rebut the employer's evidence by demonstrating that the employer's purported nonretaliatory reasons were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Strothers v. City of Laurel, Maryland, 895 F. 3d 317 (4th Cir. 2018).

Title VII Prima Facie Cases
Title VII Prima Facie Cases

Author: Landmark Publications

Publisher: Independently Published

Published: 2021-10-07

Total Pages: 540

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss the elements of a Title VII prima facie case. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), [a plaintiff] must show that "(1) he engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) his exercise of such protected activity was known by the defendant; (3) thereafter, the defendant took an action that was 'materially adverse' to the plaintiff; and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the materially adverse action." Laster, 746 F.3d at 730 (quoting Jones v. Johanns, 264 F. App'x 463, 466 (6th Cir. 2007)). [...] To prove causation in a Title VII retaliation case, a plaintiff must show that the employee's protected activity was a "but for" cause of the employer's adverse action against her, meaning the adverse action would not have occurred absent the employer's desire to retaliate. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352, 360, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013). In other words, "a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the adverse action would not have been taken had the plaintiff not filed a discrimination action" or otherwise engaged in protected activity. Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000). At the prima facie stage, this burden "is not onerous," and can be met through "evidence that defendant treated the plaintiff differently from similarly situated employees or that the adverse action was taken shortly after the plaintiff's exercise of protected rights." Id. George v. Youngstown State University, 966 F. 3d 446 (6th Cir. 2020)