The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirms the factual standard necessary to support a **Claim for Retaliation under Title VII*

🚨 **Important Employment Law Update** 🚨

**Case:** Tijuana Decoster v. Xavier Becerra, No. 22-1931 (4th Cir. 2024)

**What happened:**

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirms the factual standard necessary to support a **Claim for Retaliation under Title VII**.

**Key Legal Standard for Retaliation (Fourth Circuit):**

To make a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show:

1️⃣ They engaged in protected activity,

2️⃣ The employer acted adversely against them,

3️⃣ A causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

**Court’s Reasoning:**

- Plaintiff complained to HR about a workplace issue.

- She was then notified of a transfer to a status leading to termination.

- The employer suggested the transfer wouldn’t happen if she dropped her complaint, and the supervisor and HR knew of the complaint.

- The court found this would have dissuaded a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.

**Outcome:**

- Sufficient to **survive a motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)) for Retaliation**.

- **Hostile Work Environment** claims, however, require more than just negative performance reviews; there must be severe actions like:

1. Rumors attacking personal merit,

2. Undermining supervisory authority,

3. Threats to physical safety.

- **Constructive Discharge** requires “objective intolerability,” more than what is needed for hostile work environment claims. The Fourth Circuit hasn’t adopted a standard where an employee believes termination is imminent.

**Why it matters:**

This case is an important reaffirmation of the **retaliation standard** in the Fourth Circuit, while also emphasizing the high burden to prove a hostile work environment or constructive discharge claim.