Sca 2000e wests fsa 760107 an employer is subject

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: v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1302 (3d Cir.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington No. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. 272 V. White, --- U.S. ----, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006); see also Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 503 (3d Cir.1997). [1] In the present case, Walsh fails to establish causation on the basis of temporal proximity. The fact that his termination occurred after the letter is not sufficient to infer a causal link, and the elapsed period of eight months is not " 'unusually suggestive' of retaliatory motive." Krouse, 126 F.3d at 503 (quoting Robinson 120 F.3d at 1302). *3 In the absence of temporal proximity, causation may be established by a "pattern of antagonism" tending to show causation between the protected act and adverse employment action. Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 920 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting Robinson v. Se. Penn. Transp. Auth., 982 F.2d 892, 895 (3d Cir.1997). Although the facts of this case present a tense employment situation in which numerous reprimands and aggressive monitoring of Walsh may have been excessive, there is no evidence to suggest that these actions arose in response to Walsh's letter, or even that the situation worsened after the submission of the letter. In order to establish a causal link, a pattern of antagonism must demonstrate retaliatory motive on the part of the employer. The evidence presented in this case does not suggest such a link. Finally, causation may be supported by evidence that the employer knew of the protected activity and acted with retaliatory motive. McGorrian v. E.M.S.A., 85 F. App'x 1, 3 (3d Cir.2003) (not precedential); see also Wrighten v. Metro. Hosps., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir.1984). In the present case, there is no evidence that Mr. Stover, the manager who made the decision to terminate Walsh's employment, even knew of the letter. Absent evidence that the decision-maker had knowledge of the protected activity, "a substantial gap [exists] in any causal chain suggested [even] by temporal proximity." McGorrian, 85 F. App'x at 4. Without evidence to show that Walsh's letter was a factor in the decision t...
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