In Thompson v. Foundever, No. 2:24-CV-771-RAH, 2026 WL 25450 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 5, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff failed to plead retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This decision illustrates the level of specificity courts seek when assessing such a claim:
This therefore leaves for consideration whether Plaintiff has satisfactorily pleaded Title VII and ADA retaliation claims based on other kinds of protected conduct, such as internal grievances or complaints to Plaintiff’s supervisors or management. She has not. To assert a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that she exercised her protected rights, an adverse employment action occurred, and the adverse action was causally related to the plaintiff’s protected activities. To satisfy the causal link element of a retaliation claim, the plaintiff need only establish that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated.
To that end, while Plaintiff broadly pleads that she engaged in protected activity by making reports of disparate treatment to her supervisors, she does not sufficiently allege when, to who exactly, what she reported exactly, or what happened after she reported and when. While it is not an exacting standard, Plaintiff still must plead enough facts, when taken as true, plausibly supports each of the elements of a Title VII and ADA retaliation claim. And here, Plaintiff’s allegations are vague, conclusory and largely void of any showing that she was retaliated against because of engaging in protected activity.
(Cleaned up.)
Based on this, the court held that dismissal was warranted.