Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)

Citation: Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Parent Document: Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-08-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8443663/wetzel-v-glen-st-andrew-living-... ↗

Full Text

896 chars

*868To prove retaliation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the two. See, e.g. , Owens v. Old Wisconsin Sausage Co., Inc. , 870 F.3d 662, 668 (7th Cir. 2017) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim); Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp. , 816 F.3d 455, 464 (7th Cir. 2016) (same for ADEA); Milligan v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ. , 686 F.3d 378, 388 (7th Cir. 2012) (same for Title IX). Proof of discriminatory animus is not on the list. We have said that a claim under section 3617 requires showing intentional discrimination only when considering an interference claim. See Bloch , 587 F.3d at 783 ; East-Miller v. Lake Cnty. Highway Dep't , 421 F.3d 558, 562-63 (7th Cir. 2005) ; see also Halprin , 388 F.3d at 330-31 (recognizing that section 3617 creates different types of claims).

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text