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
- Video: NYC Enforcement Blitz, CA Surveillance Pricing, and PA Criminal History Rule Update - Employment Law This Week
- EEOC Sends Warning to Fortune 500: What Employers Should Know
- Harassment Prevention in 2026
- NYC Employers: Are You Ready for a Protected Time Off Law (ESSTA) Enforcement Blitz?
- AI Hiring Tools and Consumer Reports: Understanding the Eightfold Litigation