Kama v. Mayorkas

7 Citing cases

  1. Boyce v. Mayorkas

    No. 23-55020 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2024)

    Nor did the district court err in holding that Boyce failed to establish retaliation. See Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 2024) (setting forth the standard).

  2. Ahmed v. Wormuth

    22-cv-04365-TSH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2024)

    He introduces no evidence to suggest the approximately two-month interval between Kelly's recommendation and Even-Zohar's transfer makes Wormuth's explanation unworthy of credence, there is no evidence anyone involved “chose to rescue” Even-Zohar rather than Ahmed or that they did so based on of his religion, and even if Ahmed's December 2020 activity is considered protected activity, a six to seven month period between a purported protected activity and an employment action cannot create a triable issue of pretext. See Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Even cases involving very close temporal proximity have generally featured independent evidence of discrimination or retaliation.”

  3. Romero v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist.

    No. CV-20-00507-TUC-AMM (D. Ariz. Nov. 26, 2024)

    Furthermore, the temporal proximity “inquiry is fact-specific and depends on both the degree of proximity and what, if any, other evidence supports an inference of pretext.” Nessel, 2024 WL 3494378, at *5 (quoting Kama v. Mayorkas, No. 23-55106, 2024 WL 3449142, at *4 (9th Cir. July 18, 2024)). Even “[a]t the pretext stage, the plaintiff's burden remains low, and ‘very little[] evidence is necessary to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding

  4. Mohamed v. Full Life Care

    No. C22-1010-KKE (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    A plaintiff alleging a Title VII retaliation claim must first adequately allege that (1) he or she engaged in an activity protected under Title VII, (2) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 2024). If a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation, then the burden shifts to the defendant “to articulate ‘some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.'”

  5. Trueblood v. Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation

    No. C23-0269JLR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 28, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    To evaluate retaliation claims under Title VII, courts employ the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2024).

  6. Matthews v. Legacy Health

    6:24-cv-00592-MC (D. Or. Aug. 26, 2024)

    Pl.'s Resp. 6. Although Plaintiff is correct that temporal proximity can support a prima facie case of retaliation, “the inquiry is fact-specific and depends on [] the degree of proximity.” Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2024). In our case, Plaintiff excluded from his Amended Complaint any independent evidence of retaliation-something “[e]ven cases involving very close temporal proximity have generally featured

  7. Nessel v. JDM Golf LLC

    No. CV-23-00095-PHX-DMF (D. Ariz. Jul. 22, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Kama v. Mayorkas, No. 23-55106, 2024 WL 3449142, at *4 (9th Cir. July 18, 2024).