Tom Koch v. UNUM Group, et al.

Las Vegas, Nevada criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.



A claim of retaliation under Title VII is governed by the three-step

burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792, 802–05 (1973). First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of

retaliation by proving that "(1) [he] engaged in an activity protected under Title

VII; (2) [his] employer subjected [him] to adverse employment action; and (3)

there was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer's action.”

Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). "Under the

McDonnell Douglas framework, the requisite degree of proof necessary to

establish a prima facie case on summary judgment is minimal and does not even

need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Opara v. Yellen, 57

F.4th 709, 722 (9th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up).



he district court erred in holding that Koch had presented insufficient

evidence of causation to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The court

mischaracterized Koch's evidence of a causal link as resting solely on the timing of

his termination. Koch presented other evidence of retaliation by UNUM.

UNUM's investigation began when Koch reported incidents of sexual harassment

in June 2019 by his supervisor Scott Webb against another co-worker, Heather

Schoenwald. But the company soon began investigating3 24-6634

misconduct in December 2018 and February 2019, which had not been reported by

any employee prior to the start of UNUM's investigation. Koch also offered

evidence that Webb had threatened to retaliate against him or Schoenwald if either

one reported him to human resources. Webb allegedly told Koch: "I'll make her

life a living hell. My guys will say anything I need them to say. . . . I'll throw my

weight around and this will never go anywhere. And if you support her, then

you're against me and basically I'm doing the same thing to you.” The district

court erred by failing to address Koch's additional evidence that UNUM

terminated Koch's employment on the basis of Koch's report to human resources.

Reversed and remanded