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
- Whistle While You Work: Congress Strengthens Protections for Employees Reporting Antitrust Violations
- California Employment Law Alert: New Employment Laws Effective On or Before January 1, 2021
- EEOC Issues Technical Assistance Regarding Vaccination and Anti-Discrimination Laws
- The CDC’s New Definition of “Close Contact”: What You Need To Know
- Election Day Obligations: What Employers Need to Know
- Michigan Employers and Employees Enjoy New Protections After Governor Whitmer Signs New Laws
- Michigan Issues Emergency COVID-19 Workplace Safety Rules With Immediate Effect
- California Expands Workplace Protections Related to COVID-19 by Enacting Two Statutes Regarding Notice Requirements and Workers’ Compensation Coverage
- To Be or Not to Be (An Independent Contractor): DOL Seeks to Clarify Independent Contractor Test in Landmark Proposed Rule
- 10 Things You Should Know About the EEOC’s COVID-19 Guidance
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 ›