In Bradley v. Acts Retirement-Life Communities, Inc., No. CV 25-4037-BAH, 2026 WL 2186314 (D. Md. July 29, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
From the decision:
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) that she engaged in a protected activity; (2) that her employer took an adverse employment action against her; and (3) that there was a causal link between the two events. Bradley must plead that his termination would not have occurred but for his reports of age discrimination. … Bradley alleges, as discussed, that Lindsey threatened to harm him and made reference to Bradley’s age in doing so. Bradley alleges he reported this allegation of age discrimination to his supervisors, which the Court assumes, and Acts does not dispute, constitutes a protected activity. … Moreover, Bradley unquestionably asserts an adverse employment action in his termination. … Thus, the focus is on the causal connection between these two events.
Defendant argues that “that an intervening act occurred between his alleged protected activity and his termination: ‘Plaintiff’s refusal to return to work until the situation had been remedied. Plaintiff admits that he “refused to return to work” after Lindsey uttered his alleged threat. Moreover, Bradley arguably alleges that his refusal to return to work was due to his concern for his safety, not due to the threat of continued discrimination. Choosing not to show up to work would likely provide a plausible non-discriminatory reason for his termination. … And while Defendants are correct in noting that it is possible for a plaintiff alleging discrimination to plead himself out of court by identifying a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s adverse action …. such doomed pleading will happen only if the complaint fails to allege any other facts that support a plausible inference of causation. Plus, when ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Bradley’s complaint alleges that he was fired less than two weeks after reporting age-based discrimination by a co-worker, thus Bradley has posited a plausible inference of causation sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. See Lowman v. Maryland Aviation Admin., Civ. No. JKB-18-1146, 2019 WL 133267, at *8 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2019) (finding that, at the motion to dismiss stage, “[o]ne month is a sufficiently short time to establish a causal link by temporal proximity alone”).
If Defendant’s proffered justification for Bradley’s termination proves true, it may be the case that Bradley cannot sustain his retaliation charge. However, as noted, Bradley alleges that his termination occurred less than two weeks after his complaint of age-based discrimination. Temporal proximity between an employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action’ may establish causation only if it is very close. The short duration between Bradley’s complaint of age-based discrimination and his termination satisfies this burden. Of course, at the summary judgment stage, mere temporal proximity is not necessarily enough to create a jury issue as to causation for a retaliation claim. Murphy-Taylor v. Hofmann, 968 F. Supp. 2d 693, 720 (D. Md. 2013); Staley v. Gruenberg, 575 F. App’x 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish that a plaintiff’s engagement in protected activity was a but for cause of her [adverse employment action).
(Emphasis added; citations omitted; cleaned up.)
Accordingly, the court concluded its analysis by noting that it will “save a more fulsome evaluation of the viability of Bradley’s retaliation claim for another day.”