holding that span of one month between filing EEO complaint and being suspended was sufficient to establish prima facie claim, but noting that “[t]hree and four month periods have been held insufficient to establish a causal connection based on temporal proximity”
How later courts described this case
- holding that span of one month between filing EEO complaint and being suspended was sufficient to establish prima facie claim, but noting that “[t]hree and four month periods have been held insufficient to establish a causal connection based on temporal proximity”
- finding that the plaintiff established a causal connection between the filing of her EEOC complaint and receipt of a proposed suspension because the temporal proximity was “roughly a month”
- concluding that one month was sufficient to satisfy burden of showing causal connection, but noting that three and four-month periods have been held insufficient to establish causation
- noting that "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate when 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-2643
SYLVIA I. CALERO-CEREZO
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on January 14, 2004 is
corrected as follows:
On page 29, line 2, change "with or without an accommodation"
to "at least with an appropriate accommodation."