Opinion ID: 779803
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Elements of Title VII Retaliation Claim

Text: 24 Title VII prohibits retaliation by an employer where an individual has engaged in protected activity. 42 U.S.C § 2000e-3(a). The anti-retaliation provision provides in pertinent part: 25 It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... 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. 26 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 27 A plaintiff can establish retaliation under Title VII without proof by direct evidence. In such cases, we have adopted the burden shifting approach initially identified in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See, e.g., Hollins v. Atl. Co., 188 F.3d 652, 658 (6th Cir.1998). 28 Under this standard, White must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. She must show: 1) she engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; 2) the defendant knew of the exercise of her civil rights; 3) the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and 4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Hollins, 188 F.3d at 661 (citing Christopher v. Stouder Mem'l Hosp., 936 F.2d 870, 877 (6th Cir.1991)). 29 If White establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden of production shifts to Burlington Northern to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking the adverse employment action. Burlington Northern's burden is one of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case — i.e., the burden of `producing evidence' that the adverse employment actions were taken `for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.' St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (internal citation omitted). Once the employer produces such evidence, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the reasons the employer offered were a pretext for retaliation. See id. The plaintiff at all times retains the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the employer intentionally retaliated in violation of Title VII. See id. at 507-08, 113 S.Ct. 2742.