Dykema Labor & Employment Law Blog
Posts in Retaliation
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterTopics
- 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
- 5th Circuit Reminds Employers to Follow Requirements of Arbitration Agreement
- Supreme Court Approves Waiver of Class/Collective Actions In Arbitration Agreements. What Does it Mean for Employers?
- Easy as ABC: California High Court Mandates New Test for Independent Contractors–Most Workers Should Now be Classified as Employees
- 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
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 ›