In Trotter v. National Football League, 23-cv-8055 (JSR), 2024 WL 2952637 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under 42 USC § 1981.
From the decision:
The sufficiency of Trotter’s retaliation claim turns on whether he has adequately alleged that he engaged in some protected activity. The NFL argues that Trotter has not because his underlying complaints simply identified a lack of diversity within certain groups at the NFL coaches and executives, rather than affirmatively accused the NFL of an unlawful employment practice. The Court disagrees and finds Trotter has successfully plead a claim for retaliation. While certain of Trotter’s remarks did not expressly reference racial discrimination, other remarks of his did. Taken as a whole, Trotter has alleged that the NFL was on notice that he was complaining about an unlawful employment practice of racial discrimination at certain levels. And while the NFL claims Trotter’s complaints were not sufficiently specific in identifying the unlawful employment practice he challenged, the Court finds that such specificity is not required for his complaints to still constitute protected activity.
Further, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged (at this stage) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action, noting the plaintiff’s “complaints publicly criticizing the Commissioner of the NFL to his face, accusing him of failing to live up to his promise to address race discrimination (or at least a lack of diversity) in the NFL” and that “[i]t is easy to imagine how this remark could have tipped the scales and led to Trotter’s ultimate termination.”