In King v. Rae Products, No. 1:24-CV-00047, 2025 WL 2983862 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer knew of the protected activity; and (3) the employer took an adverse employment action against him because of his protected activity. An adverse employment action includes any conduct that would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. It is well established that, complaining to anyone (management, unions, other employees, or newspapers) about allegedly unlawful practices is protected conduct under Title VII. Assisting or participating in any manner in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing is also conduct protected under Title VII. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a). When analyzing the prima facie case, a court may not consider the employer’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for taking an adverse employment action. The Plaintiff’s burden at the prima facie stage is minimal. Rae submits that the basis for its motion as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claims is that Plaintiff lacks evidence of causation for his prima facie case or pretext.
Here, the chronological occurrence of events and the close temporal proximity between Plaintiff’s protected conduct in April 2022 – participating in Title VII sexual harassment investigation and complaining of a retaliatory hostile work environment – and Rae’s subsequent exclusion of Plaintiff and his mother from a plantwide pay increase in May and Rae’s decision to send Plaintiff home from work in early July shows Plaintiff can produce evidence at trial showing causation for purposes of his prima facie case. See George v. Youngstown State Univ., 966 F.3d 446, 460 (6th Cir. 2020). Thus, Rae has failed to demonstrate the absence of evidence as to this element or that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Nevertheless, if it can clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its employment decision, then the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to show pretext. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 (1981). An articulation not admitted into evidence will not suffice. If the defendant meets its burden of production, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the adverse action. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Rae attempts to meet its burden of production by pointing to its HR Consultant’s deposition testimony that “Rae Products was needing to make market adjustments to be able to hire new employees” as its legitimate non-retaliatory reason for its decision to exclude Plaintiff from the plantwide pay increase. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the nonmoving party and drawing reasonable inferences in his favor, the foregoing evidence does notclearly set forth a reason for Rae’s decision to exclude Plaintiff from the plantwide pay increase.
(Cleaned up.)
The court thus concluded that since defendant failed to meet its burden at step two of the McDonnell Douglas framework, it did not reach pretext, and hence denied defendant’s motion because defendant failed to show that plaintiff lacks evidence to support those claims or that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.