Opinion ID: 1436568
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Mr. McFarland's April 14, 1999, Letter Protected Activity?

Text: In order for activity to qualify as protected, a plaintiff is required to `alert the employer [and make the employer aware of the fact] that [he or] she is lodging a complaint about allegedly discriminatory conduct.' Carter-Obayuwana, 764 A.2d at 791 (quoting Green, 652 A.2d at 46) (editing in Carter-Obayuwana ). The employee need not . . . employ any `magic words' such as `discrimination,' for `the communication of a complaint of unlawful discrimination . . . may be inferred or implied ' from the surrounding facts. Id. (quoting Green, 652 A.2d at 47). However, `[t]he onus is on the employee to clearly voice [his] opposition to receive the protections provided by the Act'; general complaints about `workplace favoritism' or other conduct not actionable under the DCHRA do not put the employer on the required notice. Daka, Inc. v. McCrae, 839 A.2d 682, 690 (D.C.2003) (quoting Green, 652 A.2d at 48). Mr. McFarland's April 14, 1999, letter did ask questions about the CEEP Director position and why he had not been interviewed. The letter also contained several questions which might be interpreted as indicating that Mr. McFarland was disappointed that GW had not promoted him. However, the letter does not allege discrimination or retaliation of any kind, it does not assert any facts that would support an allegation of that nature, and it does not refer to any of his previous complaints to EEA. Even if Mr. McFarland's letter is read as signaling a general dissatisfaction with the fact that he was passed over for the promotion, it does not clearly complain about unlawful discrimination. [12] Indeed, it is far from clear that the letter is complaining about anything at all. [13] We recognize that engaging in protected activity under the DCHRA does not require the recitation of magic words, but alleging discrimination is so easily accomplished that we need not sweep in the generic concerns of any disappointed employee who is passed over while a peer is promoted. . . . Gold v. Gallaudet College, 630 F.Supp. 1176, 1187 (D.D.C.1986). This reasoning is particularly compelling in this case, given that Mr. McFarland, having previously filed a discrimination and retaliation complaint with the EEA, certainly knew how to do so. [14] However, we need not finally decide whether we agree with Judge Dixon's legal conclusion that the letter did not constitute protected activity, because, as we now discuss, there was no causal connection between the letter and the decision to terminate appellant.