Opinion ID: 2818185
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The $4,000 chargeback

Text: Wyndham concedes that the $4,000 chargeback may constitute an adverse employment action. Yet, it argues that there is no causal nexus to protected conduct. Medina-Rivera, 713 F.3d at 139. Planadeball counters that causation can be inferred from the temporal proximity between the chargeback and protected conduct. 3 [R]etaliatory actions that are not materially adverse when considered individually may collectively amount to a retaliatory hostile work environment. Billings, 515 F.3d at 54 n.13 (citing Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76, 88-90 (1st Cir. 2005)). However, Planadeball has not presented any argument about the collective effect of these three alleged acts of retaliation. Therefore, we consider them independently. -13- Planadeball made informal complaints to Maley and Wieczerzak regarding Maley's behavior in February and March 2011. She then went on medical leave from March 15 to April 1. In early April 2011, a few days after she returned to work, she noticed that her commission check was subjected to a $4,000 chargeback. Planadeball argues that the close temporal proximity between her February and March 2011 complaints and the chargeback establish the causal nexus between protected conduct and this adverse action taken against her. Planadeball is correct that [t]emporal proximity can create an inference of causation in the proper case. Pomales v. Celulares Telefónica, Inc., 447 F.3d 79, 85 (1st Cir. 2006). In order to draw such an inference, however, there must be proof that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiff's protected conduct when he or she decided to take the adverse employment action. Id.; see also Velazquez-Ortiz v. Vilsack, 657 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 2011) (Where the evidence shows only that the decisionmaker knew of the complainant's protected conduct at the time the adverse employment action was taken, causation may be inferred from a very close temporal relationship between the protected activity and the adverse action.). Planadeball has failed to make a prima facie showing of causation. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Wyndham employees who initiated the chargeback had any -14- knowledge of Planadeball's complaints to Maley and Wieczerzak.4 Planadeball was informed that the chargeback was processed because corporate had cancelled her $40,000 sale and someone in corporate subsequently entered into a sale with the same client and received the commission on the sale. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone in corporate knew about Planadeball's informal complaints in February and March 2011. Furthermore, while Planadeball complained directly to Maley about the chargeback, Maley told her that he did not know why the chargeback was processed.