Topics
- Age Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- Class Actions
- Discrimination
- Disparate Impact
- EEOC Regulations
- Employee Benefits
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Harassment
- Immigration
- Independent Contractors
- Labor Law
- Michigan Employment Issues
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- OFCCP
- Privacy
- Religion In The Workplace
- Retaliation
- Right To Work
- State Employment Regulation
- Trade Secrets
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Wage and Hour
- Whistleblower
Contributors
Recent Posts
- Higher Learning: Employees of Educational Institutions Likely Protected From Sexual Orientation Discrimination under Title IX
- Face/Off: The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Spawns a Wave of Class Action Lawsuits
- The Supreme Court Gives Employers the Green Light, Will No Longer Narrowly Construe FLSA Exemptions
- Silence Just Became More Expensive: Trump Tax Reform Requires Employers to Choose Between Tax Deduction and Confidentiality of #MeToo Settlements
- Employers Face Risks Despite State Sexual Harassment Allegations in the Post-Weinstein Era, Placing Higher Emphasis on Internal Investigations
- The DOL’s Wage & Hour Division “Dusts-Off” Shelved Opinion Letters
- U.S. Department of Labor Revision of Intern Test Provides Clarity to Employers
- The New NLRB Takes Major Swings at "Obama Board" Initiatives
- A Michigan Employer Avoids Sexual Harassment Liability Through Proper Investigation and Employee Discipline
- Listen Closely, Managers Need Training on Family and Medical Leave Act Procedures
Showing 1 post in Retaliation.
Retaliation under Title VII: A Three-Year Gap Is Not Enough to Refute Causation Under Certain Circumstances
In retaliation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the question that frequently arises in evaluating the requisite element of causation is whether “timing is enough.” Many courts have held that although temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is sufficient to establish a prima facie case, such close timing, standing alone, is insufficient to meet plaintiff’s ultimate burden of proof. But in Malin v. Hospira, Inc.,___ F.3d ___, Case No. 13-2433 (August 7, 2014), the Seventh Circuit addressed the converse question. The issue addressed in Malin was whether a three-year gap conclusively refuted a retaliation claim. The appellate court expressly rejected the principle that “the passage of a particular amount of time between protected activity and retaliation can bar [a retaliation] claim as a matter of law.” Slip op. at 2. Read More ›