Opinion ID: 6155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Barrow's Retaliation Claim

Text: 17 We require a showing of three elements to make out a prima facie case of retaliation: 24 (1) the plaintiff engaged in activity protected by the ADEA or Title VII; (2) an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) there was a causal connection between the participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. 25
18 Barrow has no retaliation claim against NOSSA for the reason stated above: NOSSA was neither his employer nor an agent of his employer, and therefore not required to conform to the ADEA in its dealings with him.
19 Barrow has produced insufficient evidence of adverse employment action and causation--the second and third elements of his prima facie case--to survive summary judgment for the Union. The record shows that, far from taking action against Barrow, the Union consistently tried to help him get work. The Union interceded on Barrow's behalf after a May 13, 1990 incident 26 in which Barrow allegedly threatened a Cooper foreman. 27 Cooper instituted a complete ban on hiring Barrow after the incident, 28 but reduced that penalty to a two-week suspension after the Union intervened. 29 The Union also wrote a letter to NOSSA demanding that NOSSA's members fill the winch runner vacancies on their gangs. This letter included a specific reference to Barrow as a qualified winch runner who was not part of a regular gang. 30 In the light of these events, we do not believe Barrow has raised any dispute of material fact concerning retaliatory adverse employment action taken against him by the Union.
20 Barrow has produced insufficient evidence that his protected action--filing complaints with the EEOC and this lawsuit--caused Cooper to take adverse employment action against him. The district court held that Barrow's own intemperate activity had caused Cooper to discipline him. We agree. The incident of May 13, 1990 was immediately followed by Cooper imposing a hiring ban on Barrow, a ban that was lifted only after the Union interceded on Barrow's behalf. The record shows that Cooper took adverse employment action against Barrow because Barrow threatened one of Cooper's foremen, not because Barrow filed an EEOC charge against Cooper.