Opinion ID: 813114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hammond’s Retaliation Claim

Text: We evaluate Hammond’s ADA retaliation claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework. See Jenkins v. Cieco Power, LLC, 487 F.3d 309, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Sherrod v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112, 1121-22 (5th Cir. 1998)). To establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation, Hammond must show that he was engaged in an activity protected by statute, that he was subject to an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal link between the protected act and the adverse action. See id. at 317 n.3; Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 319 (5th Cir. 2004); Seaman v. CSPH, Inc., 179 F.3d 297, 301 (5th Cir. 1999); Sherrod, 132 F.3d at 1122 n.8. An adverse employment action is any action that might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir.2007). A “causal link” is shown when the evidence demonstrates that “the employer’s decision to terminate was based in part on knowledge of the employee’s protected activity.” Sherrod, 132 F.3d at 1122. 8 Case: 12-30222 Document: 00512073755 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 No. 12-30222 Upon his termination, Hammond suffered an adverse employment action. The record evidence indicates that Hammond also has satisfied the first and third requirements for showing a prima facie case of retaliation. Hammond appears to have engaged in protected activity under the ADA when he requested accommodation for his disability shortly before he was fired. In addition, Hammond has presented sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between his firing and his requests for accommodation. Given that Hammond has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under the ADA, Jacobs is required to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Hammond. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Jacobs alleged that it fired Hammond for entering the plant by following another employee’s vehicle through the security gate. Although it is true that Hammond’s action violated Jacobs policy, there is evidence in the record indicating that this policy was seldom if ever enforced. Rather, the record shows that entering the plant by following another vehicle through the gate was routine and even encouraged for new employees who have yet to be issued access cards. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that Jacobs’s articulated reason for the alleged retaliatory termination was pretextual. Because the evidence pertaining to Jacobs’s security policy creates a genuine issue for trial, summary judgment was inappropriate as to Hammond’s retaliation claim.