Opinion ID: 163872
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Termination/suspension as adverse action

Text: Next, Plaintiff appears to argue that the district court erred in not considering her retaliation claim under Title VII that alleged as an adverse action the termination/suspension. (She does not contend that the termination/suspension is a basis for her claim under the FMLA.) UPS fails to address this argument in its Answer Brief, although it is clear from the record that the claim was at issue below and briefed by both parties in the district court. The district court also made no reference to this claim in its order granting UPS summary judgment on all Plaintiff’s claims. Under the circumstances we believe it is appropriate for the district court to address in the first instance Plaintiff’s contention that she was terminated (and subsequently suspended, with no monetary loss to her) on December 24, 1997, in retaliation for her November 6, 1997 Title VII lawsuit. We accordingly remand for consideration of the claim, expressing no opinion about its merits.