Templeton v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., No. 10-1753 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2011)

| Apr 22, 2011 | Daily Developments in EEO Law |

On a Friday afternoon, the Fourth Circuit in an unpublished decision dispenses some quick justice for a Title VII retaliation plaintiff — with an assist from the appellate division of the EEOC — holding that the complaint-filing stage is too early to decide whether a plaintiff can prove causation between a protected activity (here, complaining to management about sex harassment) and an adverse action (the company allegedly refusing to rehire her two years later).

Templeton v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., No. 10-1753 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2011): Plaintiffs’ lawyers have become increasingly apprehensive that some federal judges may use the recent Rule 12 decisions from the Supreme Court — Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) — to accelerate dismissal of ordinary employment-discrimination cases at the complaint stage, before the employee has any opportunity to conduct civil discovery.

The Fourth Circuit applies the brakes and holds today that district courts cannot simply dismiss a case because they project that the employee will eventually fail on an element of their proof. In this case, the district court dismissed, inter alia, a claim of retaliation on the ground that, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, “too much time [two years] had elapsed between Templeton’s harassment complaint and Defendants’ refusal to rehire her.” The panel holds that a claim could be made even on such facts: 

“Because Templeton resigned her employment shortly after she complained of harassment, Templeton was retaliated against, if at all, upon the employer’s first opportunity to do so, i.e., when Templeton expressed her interest in being rehired approximately two years after her resignation. . . .

“According to the complaint filed in this case, Templeton made clear when she resigned her employment that she was doing so, at least in part, because management allegedly failed to remedy the sexual harassment about which she complained and failed to prevent ensuing retaliation by the alleged harasser. Coupled with her allegation that Defendants would not rehire Templeton because (according to one management official) she had ‘issues with management,’ we find that it is at least plausible that Defendants’ refusal to rehire Templeton in 2008 was causally-related to Templeton’s previous harassment complaint.”

Accordingly, the case returns to the district court for further factual development.

tell us about your case


our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions