Loretta Mauldin v. Daniel Driscoll, Secretary of the Army

Muskogee, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an employment discrimination theory.



Loretta Mauldin sued the Secretary of the United States Department of the Army, asserting claims of retaliation and discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.



* * *



Because Mauldin lacks direct evidence of retaliation, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies. See Hinds, 523 F.3d at 1201–02. As discussed, under this framework, Mauldin must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The district court concluded that Mauldin failed to satisfy this first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework.



To demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA, a plaintiff must show (1) she engaged in protected opposition to discrimination, (2) a reasonable employee would have considered the challenged employment action materially adverse, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Hinds, 523 F.3d at 1202. Mauldin undoubtedly engaged in a protected activity by submitting a statement in support of Cloud's EEO

complaint and suffered a materially adverse action by not being selected for the promotion. 11 What is less clear, however, is whether she has demonstrated a causal connection between the two events.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.



Affirmed