Takeaway: Accountability extends to supervisors’ motives, underscoring the need for thorough documentation when responding to employment disputes.

A U.S. district court improperly granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a retaliation claim because the adequacy of the plaintiff’s complaint of pro se retaliation for protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have been assessed as a whole and favorably to him, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held.

The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in district court alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. To prove unlawful retaliation, a plaintiff must show that 1) they were “engaged in statutorily protected activity,” 2) the defendant took “a materially adverse action” against them, and 3) their protected activity was a “but-for” cause of that adverse action.

“Pro se” refers to representing oneself in court without an attorney. A complaint filed in this manner is to be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Of course, the complaint must still include sufficient factual matter that as a whole—if accepted as true—states a plausible claim to relief.

The plaintiff had worked for the federal government as of 1999 in Washington, D.C. In 2015, he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint that alleged racial discrimination due to an involuntary transfer to serve as a GS-13 criminal investigator...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiwgFBVV95cUxQWkRjMncwYTR0UlRtVy1uNGlO...