In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Council for Advancement of Social Services and Education, 2024 WL 4479882 (W.D.La. Oct. 10, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
After concluding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim of race discrimination, the court turned to plaintiff’s retaliation claim:
[T]he prima facie case for a Title VII retaliation claim requires a plaintiff to establish three elements. There are sufficient facts within the Complaint demonstrating the plausibility of EEOC’s claim. First, Johnson engaged in a protected activity when she reported to Weber, coworkers, and another manager that Dr. Chumley’s comments and actions made her uncomfortable. See Record Document 1 at 4. The Fifth Circuit has found that an internal complaint is a protected activity under Title VII. See Wright v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 990 F.3d 428, 434 (5th Cir. 2021).
Second, after complaining about Dr. Chumley’s actions, Johnson was placed on unpaid administrative leave and then fired shortly thereafter. See Record Document 1 at 5. The broader definition for what constitutes an adverse employment action mentioned in Hamilton applies to all Title VII claims, including retaliation. See Harrison v. Brookhaven Sch. Dist., 82 F. 4th 427, 428 (5th Cir. 2023). Thus, like a discrimination claim under Title VII, termination is considered an adverse employment action in a Title VII retaliation claim. See Joanna Smith, Plaintiff—Appellant v. Honorable Frank Kendall, Sec’y of the Air Force, Defendant—Appellee, No. 23-50713, 2024 WL 4442040, at *7 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2024). Therefore, Johnson’s termination constitutes an adverse employment action.
Third, within one hour of learning of Johnson’s complaint, Ms. Chumley placed Johnson on unpaid administrative leave. See Record Document 1 at 5. Then, Ms. Chumley proceeded with Johnson’s termination. See id. This third and final element requires showing a causal connection between the protected activity, Johnson’s internal complaint, and the adverse action, her termination. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, “close timing permits an inference of causation.” Wright, 990 F.3d at 434. In fact, a period of two months between the protected activity and adverse action “is sufficient to show [a] casual connection for purposes of a prima facie case.” Outley v. Luke & Assocs., Inc., 840 F.3d 212, 219 (5th Cir. 2016).
In the instant case, Johnson complained of Dr. Chumley’s conduct in or around early June 2020. See Record Document 1 at 4. Johnson was terminated in June 2020. See id. at 3. Even though no specific dates were mentioned in the Complaint, the period between the protected activity and adverse employment action was close in time. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, less than two months is sufficient to show a causal connection. At this stage of the proceeding, EEOC has alleged sufficient facts “permitting at least an inference of [CASSE’s] knowledge of [Johnson’s] protected conduct in order to establish the required causal link between her conduct and the alleged retaliation.” Wright, 990 F.3d at 434.
The court accordingly concluded that defendant’s assertion that plaintiff failed to state a claim for retaliation under Title VII is unsuccessful, in that plaintiff’s claim has facial plausibility.