Opinion ID: 64131
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jusuf’s Retaliation Claim

Text: The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework also applies to Jusuf’s unlawful retaliation claim. Turner, 476 F.3d at 348 (citation omitted). Jusuf must demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that: “(1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Id. (citation omitted). Under Title VII, an employee engages in protected activity if she opposes “any practice made an unlawful employment practice under” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Jusuf confirmed an alleged affair between a supervisor and subordinate that violated Southwest policy. Jusuf stated that she and Kuntz were treated unfairly because of their involvement in reporting the affair. This Court, however, has expressly held that discrimination based on an employee’s knowledge of an affair between two co-workers fails to form the basis of a Title VII claim. See Ellert v. Univ. of Tex., 52 F.3d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1995). Jusuf, therefore, did not engage in protected activity and her retaliation claim fails.