Whistleblower Retaliation Cases Evolves Around Proving Causation
“[E]vidence that a defendant’s explanation for an employment practice is ‘unworthy of credence’ is one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination.”
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (circumstantial evidence used to prove discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)
- Collins v. Beazer Homes, 334 F.Supp. 2d 1365 (N.D. Georgia 2004) (burden of proof; inclusion of state claim; protected activity)
- Haley v. Retsinas,138 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 1998)
- Frobose v. American Savings and Loan, F. 3d 602 (7th Cir. 1998)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 U.S. 1186 (retaliation law created tort-like remedy and permitted court to hold hospital liable based on animus of supervisor who did not make the ultimate decision to fire employee)
- Marano v. DOJ, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Standard of Proof).
- Chambers v. Department of Interior, 602 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (application of “Carr” factors to mitigate level of punishment in whistleblower cases).
- Khandelwal v. Southern Calf. Ed., 97-ERA-6 (ARB, March 31, 1998) (demonstrating underlying violation, evidence of motive)