How-To: Sue for Post-Termination Retaliation

Background:	Your employer fired you after you complained about employment discrimination
Problem:	That same employer continued to retaliate against you after your termination
Solution:	You sue your former employer for post-termination retaliation

I. Legal Citations

42 USC §2000e-3 | Other Unlawful Employment Practices
"(a) Discrimination for making charges, testifying, assisting, or participating in enforcement proceedings. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter." 29 CFR 1625.10 | Costs and Benefits Uder Employee Benefit Plans
"(d)(5)...This is by reason of section 4(d) which provides that it is unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization to discriminate against any individual because such individual “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this Act.”" 29 CFR 1630.12 | Retaliation and Coercion
"(a) Retaliation. It is unlawful to discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce any provision contained in this part." 29 CFR 1635.7 | Retaliation
"A covered entity may not discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this title or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title."

II. Samples

# PDF Comments

1 TBD case. USFLMD. Pro Se Filing. 2020. §1981 Case (+ §760 FS). Financial/Professional/Lethal.

2 USGAWD. 2004. Attorney Filing. College Professor. False Statements from Former Employer.

#	PDF	Comments
1		TBD case. USFLMD. Pro Se Filing. 2020. §1981 Case (+ §760 FS). Financial/Professional/Lethal.
2		USGAWD. 2004. Attorney Filing. College Professor. False Statements from Former Employer.

III. Templates

# Word Comments

1 Replace all of the placeholder tags with real information (eg "[plfName]" becomes "John Doe").

#	Word	Comments
1		Replace all of the placeholder tags with real information (eg "[plfName]" becomes "John Doe").

IV. Quick Commentary

Critical Note: File your complaint on time!
- Under Florida Law (ie, FCRA via FCHR):
  - Within 35 Days of the FCHR's Notice of Determination (No Reasonable Cause); OR
  - within 1 Year of the FCHR's Notice of Determination (Reasonable Cause); OR
  - within 1 Year of the FCHR's Final Order Finding an Unlawful Employment Practice Occurred;
    - see §760.11 FS
- Under Title VII (EEOC):
  - Within 90 Days of the EEOC's Right-to-Sue Letter
    - see 29 CFR §1601.19
- Under 42 USC §1981:
  - Within 4 Years of the Defendant's last adverse employment act
Standard of Review: Pursuant to the McDonnel-Douglas analysis, a prima facie case of post-termination retaliation must show:
1. Plaintiff engaged in a statutorily protected activity
  - Example: filing a formal complaint with a state agency (eg, the FCHR)
  - Example: filing a formal complaint with a federal agency (eg, the EEOC)
  - Example: filing a formal complaint with a local agency (eg, Jacksonville Commission on Human Rights)
2. Plaintiff suffered a materially adverse action
  - Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2008)
    - "The [employer's response] would have affected Goldsmith's continued pursuit of his pending charge of discrimination."
  - Saunders v. Emory Healthcare, Inc., 360 F. App’x 110, 115 (11th Cir. 2010)
    - "In the anti-retaliation context, adverse employment actions are those that might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."
    - "The conduct only need be serious enough that it might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."
  - Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Company v. White 548 US 53 (2006)
    - "the anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act’s basic guarantees."
    - "The Court refers to material adversity to separate significant from trivial harms."
    - "The anti-retaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm."
3. There was a causal relation between the two (ie, the protected activity and the adverse action)
  - Brungart v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 231 F.3d 791, 799 (11th Cir. 2000)
    - "we construe the "causal link" element to require merely that the plaintiff establish that the protected activity and the adverse action were not wholly unrelated."
    - "In order to show the two things were not entirely unrelated, the plaintiff must generally show that the decision maker was aware of the protected conduct at the time of the adverse employment action."
  - Springs v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 F. App’x 438, 445 (6th Cir. 2014)
    - "What factual grouping constitutes a "transaction," and what groupings constitute a "series," are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage."
  - Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006)
    - "The temporal proximity must be "very close" if there is no other evidence tending to show causation. Id. "[I]n the absence of any other evidence of causation, a three and one-half month proximity between a protected activity and an adverse employment action is insufficient to create a jury issue on causation."
  - Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F.3d 1453, 1456 (11th Cir. 1998)
    - "In the absence of close temporal proximity, a plaintiff may establish causation by showing that her employer knew of a protected activity, and that a series of adverse employment actions commenced shortly thereafter."
Download as many sample documents as you'd like
- Model your language after the language that lawyers use
Use the free-hand template (see Part III - above) to write your 'Objections'
Save the final version as a PDF file.
File the final version in court

V. Additional Notes

Estimated Time ≈ 4-16 hours

VI. Additional Resources

Section 2-C from the EEOC's Handbook on Retaliation

VII. Bibliography

VIII. Conclusion

Basically, to sue your former employer for post-termination retaliation you must show that (a) your former employer knew that you complained; (b) something really bad happened to you; and (c) that bad thing was related to your former employer.

...POINTS & THINGS...

Congratulations! You're now booked up on how to sue your former employer for Post-Termination Retaliation!

Please get the justice you deserve.

Sincerely,

www.TextBookDiscrimination.com

How-To: Sue for Post-Termination Retaliation

I. Legal Citations

II. Samples

III. Templates

IV. Quick Commentary

V. Additional Notes

VI. Additional Resources

VII. Bibliography

VIII. Conclusion

...POINTS & THINGS...

add a comment

thank you, come again!
TBD 1.037

Submit a Quiz Question

That Will Test Another User's Page-Specific Knowledge

Pages You Might Also Like

How-To: Sue for Post-Termination Retaliation

I. Legal Citations

II. Samples

III. Templates

IV. Quick Commentary

V. Additional Notes

VI. Additional Resources

VII. Bibliography

VIII. Conclusion

...POINTS & THINGS...

add a comment

thank you, come again!TBD 1.037

Submit a Quiz Question

That Will Test Another User's Page-Specific Knowledge

Pages You Might Also Like

thank you, come again!
TBD 1.037