Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)

Citation: Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)
Parent Document: Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3155371/abril-rivera-v-johnson/ ↗

Full Text

1,315 chars

The first set of complaints identified by plaintiffs occurred too early to ground a retaliation claim. The second set occurred too late and cannot be causally related. The decision to close the PR-NPSC was set in motion by recommendations in May 2008, at least two months before the implementation of the rotational staffing system, the subject of the second set of complaints. As the Supreme Court has explained, employers’ “proceeding along lines previously contemplated, though not yet definitively determined, is no evidence whatever of causality.” Breeden, 532 U.S. at 272, 121 S.Ct. 1508; accord Muñoz v. Sociedad Española de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de P.R., 671 F.3d 49, 56 (1st Cir.2012). In Breeden, the Court held that it could not infer that the plaintiff had been transferred in retaliation for filing a Title VII lawsuit when the plaintiffs employer had stated that she was considering transferring the plaintiff before the employer knew about the lawsuit. 532 U.S. at 271-72, 121 S.Ct. 1508. Here, without more evidence of causality (and plaintiffs have pointed to none), there can be no rational inference that the closure of the PR-NPSC, first contemplated in May 2008, took place in retaliation for complaints filed in the wake of the July 2008 implementation of the rotational staffing plan.

Other Sections in This Document (839)

Full Text