Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10693813/rolfs-v-home-depot/ ↗

Full Text

909 chars

To make out a prima facie case of retaliation under
     the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
     framework, a plaintiff must show that: (1) [he]
     engaged in protected activity under Title V I I , (2)
     [he] suffered an adverse employment action, and (3)
     the adverse employment action was causally connected
     to the protected activity. Collazo v . Bristol–Myers
     Squibb Mfg., Inc., 617 F.3d 3 9 , 46 (1st Cir. 2010);
     McDonnell Douglas Corp. v . Green, 411 U.S. 7 9 2 , 802–04
     (1973). If a plaintiff makes this showing the burden
     swings to the defendant “to articulate a legitimate,
     non-retaliatory reason for its employment decision.”
     Collazo, 617 F.3d at 4 6 . If a defendant can do this
     then the burden travels once more to the plaintiff to
     show that the reason is pretext and that retaliatory
     animus was the real motivating factor. Id.

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text