Where a former law enforcement officer failed to show she suffered an adverse employment action, or any causal connection between her protected activity and her claimed adverse employment actions, her retaliation suit was dismissed.
Colette Cunningham asserts two retaliation claims: under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants, the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, or LCSO, and Sheriff Michael L. Chapman, have filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff participated in protected activities under Title VII when she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, and when she filed her prior case in this district. However the court agrees with defendants that plaintiff cannot premise her complaint here on alleged complaints that she made to her supervisors. Those complaints were the subject of the initial disposition of plaintiff’s claims in the prior case.
Defendants’ alleged failure to protect plaintiff’s position while she was on Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, leave does not constitute an adverse action under Title VII. This is because “retaliation claims under the various anti-discrimination statutes ‘do not cross-pollinate,’ meaning that a retaliation claim brought pursuant to a specific anti-discrimination statute must be based on a protected activity under that statute.”
The second and third actions alleged – regarding the denials of...
Dr. Natalia Krasovkaya, director of the National Center for Public Diplomacy (CND), has recently circulated in online publications accusing her of involvement in recruiting African nationals for t...