A federal district court granted the Federal Aviation Administration's [Defendant] motion for summary judgment dismissing a former employee's [Petitioner] claim that he suffered retaliation within the meaning of Title VII* after he filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.** Petitioner, contending the district court failed to properly consider his evidence and improperly credited evidence submitted by Defendant, appealed the district court's ruling.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that in considering Petitioner’s Title VII retaliation claim, it employ the three-step burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, explaining that to establish a prima facie case of retaliation the petitioner must demonstrate that:
(1) petitioner engaged in a protected activity;
(2) petitioner's exercise of that right was known to the defendant; and
(3) petitioner showed that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action suffered.
If the petitioner makes out this prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a “legitimate, non-retaliatory reason” for the challenged action. If the defendant satisfies this burden, the petitioner must then present enough evidence so that a jury could find that the reasons offered were a pretext for retaliation and “that retaliation was a ‘but-for’ cause of the adverse action” – i.e., “that the adverse action would not haveoccurred in the absence of the retaliatory motive".
The Circuit Court agreed with district court's finding [1] that the Defendant met the step-two burden and [2] that the Petitioner failed to carry his burden at step three of the McDonnell Douglas framework. In addition, the court noted "there can be no doubt that Defendant identified 'legitimate, non-retaliatory reason[s]' for its issuance of a Notice of Proposed Removal following an investigation into [the Petitioner’s] workplace conduct***."
Accordingly, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
* Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.
** The district court also granted summary judgment as to Petitioner’s free-standing constructive-discharge claim. Petitioner did not appeal this aspect of the district court’s judgment.
*** Defendant submitted documentary evidence of incidents of Petitioner's workplace misconduct including Petitioner's (1) making unauthorized recordings of various work-related meetings; (2) connecting an unauthorized recording device to his government-issued computer; and (3) exhibiting a lack of candor when Plaintiff was questioned about this conduct.
Click HERE to access the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.