CourtCases2010

Civil rights act of 1964 701 42 usca 2000e wests fsa

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t submitted by her coworker. Walsh filed suit against Wal-Mart in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, claiming age and disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA, ADEA, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on all claims. Walsh appeals only on the retaliation claims under the ADA and ADEA. II. Discussion We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same standard as the District Court. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Indem. Co., 426 F.3d 204, 209 (3d. Cir.2005). Where the non-moving party would bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must indicate a lack of evidence on an element essential to the claim, and the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a triable issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To establish a claim of unlawful retaliation in violation of the ADA and ADEA, a plaintiff must show: 1) protected activity by the employee; 2) adverse employment action by the employer; and 3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Nelson v. Upsala Coll., 51 F.3d 383, 386 (3d Cir.1995). In this case, only the third element is at issue. [FN2] To sustain his claim of retaliation, Walsh must be able to produce evidence of a causal connection between his February letter to Wal-Mart headquarters and the termination of his employment almost eight months later. Proof of causation may depend on three types of evidence: temporal proximity, a pattern of antagonism by the employer in response to the protected activity, and the employer's knowledge of that activity. While evidence of only one factor is generally insufficient to establish causation, evidence of all three is not necessary, so long as the claim reasonably supports an inference of causation. See Robinson...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online