In Roberts v. AHS Hillcrest Medical Center, LLC et al, No. 26-CV-0171-CVE-JFJ, 2026 WL 264136 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 8, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This decision aptly illustrates the legal principle that, under certain circumstances, a retaliation claim may stand, even if the underlying discrimination claim fails.
From the decision:
Hillcrest argues that the dismissal of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims also requires the Court to dismiss her retaliation claims, because plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that Hillcrest retaliated against her for reporting an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. Plaintiff responds that she engaged in protected activity for the purpose of a retaliation by reporting Dr. Johnson’s sexual harassment, because she had a good faith belief that this type of conduct fell within the scope of Title VII’s protections
To state a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, plaintiff must allege that: (1) she engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2) her employer took an adverse employment action against her; and (3) there is a causal connection between the opposition and the adverse action. The law is clear that reporting workplace discrimination to the EEOC is protected behavior, but informal complaints concerning discriminatory conduct also qualify as protected opposition. An employee may establish causation by showing that the adverse employment action occurred soon after the protected activity. Unless there is a very close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the retaliatory conduct, the plaintiff must offer additional evidence to establish causation. A plaintiff is permitted to maintain a retaliation claim as long as she has a good faith belief that the underlying conduct reported to the employer constituted a violation of Title VII, even if that belief is ultimately incorrect. Crumpacker v. Kansas Dep’t of Human Resources, 338 F.3d 1163, 1172 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Ford v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 45 F.4th 1202, 1224 (10th Cir. 2022).
Hillcrest argues that plaintiff has failed to adequately allege a Title VII claim under a hostile work environment theory, and this means that she has also failed to allege that she engaged in protected activity for the purpose of a retaliation claim. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has clearly alleged that she reported alleged sexual harassment to Hillcrest that fell within this scope of Title VII for at least two reasons. First, plaintiff has alleged a sex discrimination claim (first claim for relief) which Hillcrest has not sought to dismiss, and plaintiff still has an underlying discrimination claim even though the Court has dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. Second, plaintiff has clearly alleged that Dr. Johnson “forcefully smacked her buttocks, causing her to lurch forward,” and reporting this conduct to Hillcrest qualified as protected opposition, even if the Court were to find that plaintiff had no valid underlying claims. Dr. Johnson’s alleged conduct would constitute sexual harassment and plaintiff had a good faith belief that she was reporting conduct covered by Title VII. Plaintiff alleges that Hillcrest took adverse action against her for reporting sexual harassment by demoting her, reducing her pay, and permanently removing her from the role of charge nurse. Plaintiff also alleges that Hillcrest subsequently terminated her employment based on falsified claims of attendance and professionalism issues, and plaintiff has adequately alleged that Hillcrest took an adverse employment action against her. Plaintiff’s allegations also support an inference that her reporting of sexual harassment and the adverse employment actions were causally related. Hillcrest cites two cases for the proposition that reporting “isolated instances of inappropriate behavior” is not protected opposition, but the cases actually concern the reporting of conduct falling wholly outside of the scope of Title VII. Janus v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Wildlife Conservation, 2021 WL 433196 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 2021) (plaintiff’s complaint concerning a single crude, but not inherently discriminatory, comment was not protected opposition); New v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 434 F. Supp. 3d 1219 (N.D. Okla. 2020) (plaintiff did not report unlawful employment practice when she complained that coworkers were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship).
(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
Accordingly, the court concluded that here “plaintiff clearly reported conduct that fell within the scope of Title VII and she has sufficiently alleged that Hillcrest retaliated against her for reporting this conduct, and she has stated a retaliation claim under Title VII.”