On November 1, 2022, in Dusel v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that “close temporal proximity” alone does not establish pretext as this evidence “must be considered alongside the . . . record.” Nor does mere close temporal proximity establish pretext where the employer has a legitimate business reason for taking adverse action against the employee, and more particularly, where the employer subsequently discovers the employee’s misconduct in a separate, unrelated matter. Dusel is a win for employers because it signals that engaging in protected activity will not immunize an employee from the consequences of misconduct that violates company policy if the employer enforces its policy consistently and documents the reasons underlying the employee’s discipline.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- New York City Publishes Final Rules Related to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act
- Watch: Beyond the EEOC - the Widening Divide in Disparate Impact Enforcement - Employment Law This Week
- The Death of Disparate Impact? What Recent DOJ Guidance Signals to Employers
- Watch: The NLRB Is No Longer Independent—What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week
- Defunding DEI Hits a Legal Wall: Courts Shield Federal Funding Recipients from Biased Artificial Intelligence (AI) Overreach