Mansfield v. Holder

1 Citing case

  1. Evans v. Larchmont Baptist Church Infant Care Ctr., Inc.

    956 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Va. 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Finding four days between the alleged protected activity and the adverse action to be close enough to allege facts in support of causation

    This action is a protected activity under the ADA. See Mansfield v. Holder, No. 09–cv–5718, 2012 WL 406432, at *19 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 9, 2012) (“Protected activity includes ... making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to the Act.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); Carroll v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 4:00–CV–159–H(4), 2001 WL 34013436, at *4 (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2001) (“it is clear that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity by filing EEOC charges”). Evans alleges that she informed the EEOC on August 3, 2009, that her co-worker had been wrongfully terminated, that Carmi “forced/requested [ ] staff [ ] to complete a survey ... and submit statements that [her coworker] was sleeping on the job,” and that there had been no formal discussions at Larchmont regarding sleeping on the job.