Opinion ID: 2812341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliation Claim Based on Demotion

Text: On appeal, plaintiff Redd argues that the district court erred in granting UPS summary judgment on his retaliation claim based on his allegation that he was demoted because of his EEOC charge. We reject Redd’s arguments that the district court erred in finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The district court found, and the parties do not dispute, that Redd met the first two elements of his prima facie case by showing that he engaged in statutorily protected activity, filing an EEOC charge, and that he suffered a materially adverse action, a demotion. As a result, we consider only whether Redd demonstrated a causal connection between the two. See Crawford, 529 F.3d at 970. As an initial matter, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Redd, Garrett knew about Redd’s March 5, 2010 EEOC charge because he was present at the April 2010 meeting during which other management personnel allegedly encouraged Redd to drop the charge. However, Redd failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find any causal connection between 19 Case: 14-14945 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 20 of 22 his March 2010 EEOC charge and his demotion four months later in July 2010. See Thomas, 506 F.3d at 1364. This four-month disparity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action falls squarely within the “three to four month” range that this Court has held is insufficient alone to show causation. See id. On appeal, Redd contends that the relevant date under the temporal proximity analysis is not the date he filed his EEOC charge, but the date of the April 2010 meeting in which Redd was “intimidated and pressured to dismiss his EEOC charge but opposed this action by failing to dismiss his charge.” To begin with, Redd mischaracterizes the record evidence of this meeting, as Redd testified in his deposition only that management personnel indicated at the meeting that they wished Redd to drop his EEOC charge. 3 There is no record evidence that Redd was “intimidated and pressured.” In any event, even assuming that Redd engaged in protected activity during the meeting under the meaning of § 2000e- 3(a), this three-month disparity alone is insufficient to create a causal nexus. See id. 3 In their depositions, the management personnel denied that Redd was in any way encouraged to drop his EEOC charge during the meeting. 20 Case: 14-14945 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 21 of 22 Therefore, in the absence of other evidence of causation, Redd failed to demonstrate a causal connection by showing that his protected activity and his demotion were related. See Shannon, 292 F.3d at 716. 4