In Zano v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Civil Action No. 22-2748 (RBW), 2024 WL 2699976 (D.D.C. May 24, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court discussed and applied the elements of such a claim – protected activity, adverse action, and causation – as follows:
Here, the plaintiff clearly engaged in protected activity when she first brought these issues of alleged discrimination to the Office of Resolution Management in 2017, and then filed an EEOC charge on December 26, 2018. Indeed, her EEOC complaint alleged discrimination and harassment by the defendant on the basis of her race, sex, color, disability (mental and physical), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964. Accordingly, the plaintiff has shown that she engaged in a statutorily protected activity. …
Next, the Court considers whether the plaintiff has adequately pleaded that she suffered a materially adverse action by her employer. Adverse actions in the retaliation context encompass a broader sweep of actions than those in a pure discrimination claim. More specifically, retaliation actions are not limited to those that affect the terms and conditions of employment. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). Instead, a materially adverse action for the purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim is one that could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
The Court concludes that the plaintiff has asserted that she suffered a materially adverse action by her employer as grounds for her Title VII retaliation claim. The plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against, harassed, intimidated, falsely accused of being habitually late, openly retaliated against in front of her co-workers, was in a hostile work environment, and other prohibited actions. She also claims that she received wrongful absent without leave designations, and as a result, lost her sick leave because it was converted from FMLA-leave of absence to FMLA-leave without pay. Reduced income and leave benefits are adverse actions that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. … Here, when the plaintiff allegedly received wrongful absent without leave designations, and her sick leave time was allegedly converted from FMLA-leave of absence to FMLA-leave without pay, she experienced reductions in her benefits and income. Such reductions could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, and thus qualify as adverse actions at this stage of the proceedings. …
Finally, the Court considers whether the plaintiff has asserted the required causal nexus between the alleged adverse actions and her prior protected activity. A plaintiff may establish a causal connection by showing a close temporal proximity between her involvement in protected activity and the materially adverse action taken by her employer. Moreover, courts in this Circuit have repeatedly “emphasized that a plaintiff alleging retaliation faces a relatively low hurdle at the motion to dismiss stage. … More specifically, at the motion to dismiss stage of a case, a plaintiff can meet her prima facie burden of causation simply by alleging that the adverse actions were caused by her protected activity. …
Here, the plaintiff alleges that she brought her issues of alleged discrimination to the Office of Resolution Management in 2017, and that she was retaliated against mainly by Mr. Wells shortly after filing her first complaint of discrimination in 2017. Recognizing the relatively low hurdle plaintiffs face at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has satisfied her burden of pleading a causal connection between the alleged adverse actions and her prior protected activity by alleging that she was retaliated against, and that she was retaliated against mainly by Mr. Wells shortly after filing her first complaint of discrimination in 2017. …
[Citations and internal quotation marks omitted; cleaned up.]
Based on this, the court concluded that plaintiff adequately pleaded a retaliation claim under Title VII.