In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reiterated the notion that temporal proximity, i.e., evidence that “the employer had knowledge of the employee’s protected activity, and the adverse personnel action took place shortly after the activity” can support an inference of retaliatory motive thereby, allowing employees to survive summary judgment in Title VII and ADEA retaliation claims.  In Jones v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Charles Jones filed a complaint against his employer, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“the Board”), alleging that the Board discriminated against him when it denied him a promotion to a managerial position in favor of a younger woman, and further retaliated against him when he requested a hearing before an administrative law judge on his discrimination claims.  The Board moved for summary judgment on Jones’s retaliation claims, arguing that the timing between Jones’s protected activity and the allegedly adverse evaluation does not support an inference of retaliation.

The district court granted the Board summary judgment, concluding that Jones had not satisfied his prima facie burden of retaliation because he “failed to establish that his supervisors had knowledge of” his September 2000 request for a hearing.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that to survive summary judgment, an employee need not provide direct evidence that the employer knew of his protected activity, but rather need only offer circumstantial evidence that could reasonably support an inference that the employer had such knowledge.  Additionally, the Court noted that because the Board asserted its legitimate non-retaliatory explanation for the 2000 evaluation, the district court should have considered only whether the evidence “either separately or in combination” was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer retaliation, and not “whether Jones made out a prima facie case.”  Finding that Jones’s evidence of temporal proximity was sufficient to support an inference of retaliatory motive, the Court remanded the case to the district court.
 
This case is significant because it rejects the notion that temporal proximity can serve only as persuasive evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and suggests that employees can proceed with their claims even where the only evidence of a causal connection is based on temporal proximity.  For information about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Practice, click here.

In an article titled, “More Bias Charges Filed in FYO8 Than Ever:  EEOC,” Law360 reports on the unprecedented increase of workplace discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in fiscal year 2008.   According to the article, the EEOC has reported a 15% increase in discrimination charges filed with the EEOC compared to fiscal year 2007.  The EEOC attributes the upsurge in filings, which totaled 95,402, to a number of factors, including demographic shifts in the work force, heightened awareness of the law, and the distressed economy.  Although the EEOC has reported that it has not seen an increase of this magnitude for many years, employment lawyers like Jason Zuckerman, a Principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm, are not surprised by the numbers.  According to Zuckerman, the EEOC’s numbers were consistent with what he observed in his practice.  His recommendation to the EEOC – more resources—“Having more resources for intake, for investigation and for prosecution would go a long way in helping [the EEOC] combat both discrimination and retaliation.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm routinely represents employees who face discriminatory practices in the workplace.  To learn more about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Practice, click here.