; Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 214 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (employee's misconduct in violating employer's electronic communications policy served to sever any causal connection between her termination and any protected activity).
DFS also argues that "Kuba's own actions sever any causal connection she may attempt to establish through an alleged temporal proximity." (Doc. 38 at 18 (citing Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1288-89 (S.D. Fla. 2016))). But the only action cited by DFS that occurred after Kuba's June 18 email to Kalogridis was the email she sent later that day to Employee Relations, in which she complained that Martin "feels she can bully me and run rough shot [sic] over me with setting up codes."
"[A] valid claim for retaliation under Dodd-Frank and the FWA must allege that (1) plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) plaintiff suffered a materially adverse employment action, and (3) the adverse action was causally connected to the protected activity." Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing Securities Whistleblower Incentives & Protections, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300, 34304 (June 13, 2011)). "'[I]f the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate . . . reason for the [adverse action].'"
The record evidence shows otherwise, at least when viewed in Loughner's favor. "To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct and that the protected activity and the adverse action were not wholly unrelated." Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in Loughner's favor, Loughner told Airlift personnel that he could not fly for medical reasons and was fired a short time thereafter.
Accordingly, because Minter has provided evidence supporting his assertion that Plaintiff's termination was based on his role in the Faitele Incident, and because Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence indicating that the true reason was his participation in the Group Complaint, Plaintiff cannot show that Minter violated his First Amendment rights. See Perez v. City of Opa-Locka, No. 22-20748-CIV, 2023 WL 6121896, at *10-12 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2023) (notwithstanding plaintiff's complaints about financial mismanagement within the police department, because the plaintiff broke department policy by inappropriately discharging a taser, the department had adequate justification, unrelated to his protected speech, for removing him); Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 214 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (employee's misconduct in violating employer's electronic communications policy severed any causal connection between her termination and any protected activity).
; Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 214 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (employee's misconduct in violating employer's electronic communications policy severed any causal connection between her termination and any protected activity).
To state a whistleblower retaliation claim under the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 78u-6, a plaintiff must show that: "(1) plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) plaintiff suffered a materially adverse employment action, and (3) the adverse action was causally connected to the protected activity." Hall v. Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. , 214 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (" Hall ") citing 76 Fed. Reg. at 34304 n.41. Tyco moves for summary judgment as to Thomas's claim under the Dodd-Frank Act asserting her "conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim because: (1) her reports are not protected activity and (2) there is no causal relation between her termination and the alleged reports."
To plead a valid claim for retaliation under Dodd-Frank, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity. Hall v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 15-cv-61536-BLOOM/Valle, 2016 WL 5661630, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2016) (citations omitted). Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a clam under Dodd-Frank because he has not alleged an adverse action that was attributable to a report to the SEC. Plaintiff bases his Dodd-Frank claim on alleged reports Plaintiff made to the SEC after Defendant terminated Plaintiff's services.