Retaliation in Rhode Island

Background

“Retaliation is defined broadly as any adverse employment action taken by an employer against a person who has exercised a right under the statute.” (See Panarello v. State, PC, C.A. No. PC 03-5569, at *25 (R.I. Super. Jan. 22, 2009).)

“An adverse employment action includes the denial of initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment, including, but not limited to, rights and benefits under a pension plan, health plan, or employee stock ownership plan, insurance coverage and awards, bonuses, severance pay, as well as the opportunity to select work hours and/or the location of employment.” (See id.)

“An inference of retaliation arises when the plaintiff establishes an adverse action soon after the plaintiff engages in the protected activity.” (See State v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC 07-7048, at *1 (R.I. Super. Oct. 17, 2014).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Furthermore, the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) provides for civil liability in the case of any discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or country of ancestral origin, regardless of context.” (See Monteiro v. Town of Middletown, No. NC-2005-0261, at *9-10 (R.I. Super. July 20, 2011).)

"[T]he RICRA protects plaintiffs against any discrimination which interferes with the benefits, terms, and conditions' of the employment relationship — whether it takes the form of disparate impact, disparate treatment, retaliation, or harassment." (See id.)

"[T]here is no language requiring, or even suggesting, that a plaintiff must first exhaust any or all administrative remedies before filing a civil action [under RICRA], including appealing a RICHR decision.” (See id.)

“To interpret RICRA, Rhode Island courts look to decisions on Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, upon which this state's statute is based.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation.” (See City of Providence v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC-13-5757, at *9 (R.I. Super. July 25, 2017).)

“The purpose of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is to allocate[] burdens of production and order[] the presentation of evidence so as progressively to sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination.” (See State v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC 07-7048, at *1 (R.I. Super. Oct. 17, 2014).)

“To establish a prima facie case in a retaliation claim, the employee must show that:

1. [the employee] engaged in protected conduct;
2. [the employee] experienced an adverse employment action; and
3. there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action.”

(See State v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC 07-7048, at *1 (R.I. Super. Oct. 17, 2014).)

"The employee first must make out a prima facie case of retaliation [or discrimination]. If the employee succeeds, a presumption of discrimination results, and the burden of production, not persuasion, then falls to the employer, who must respond with some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the act at issue.” (See State v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC 07-7048, at *1 (R.I. Super. Oct. 17, 2014).)

“If the employer carries the burden of production, the presumption of discrimination disappears, and the employee then must demonstrate that the employer's proffered explanation amounts to mere pretext." (See id.)

“Once the employee satisfies this burden and establishes his or her prima facie case, a presumption arises that the [employer] committed unlawful discrimination or retaliation.” (See id.)

“At that point, the employer must respond to the employee's prima facie case by producing a legitimate nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reason for the disputed actions.” (See id.)

“If the employer successfully produces such rebuttal evidence, the employee then must assume the further burden of showing that the proffered reason is a pretext calculated to mask [discrimination or] retaliation.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“With these principles in mind, the Court recognizes that while an employee has "the ultimate burden of persuasion in these matters[,] this does not mean that the employee is required to produce evidence of the smoking gun variety." (See State v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC 07-7048, at *1 (R.I. Super. Oct. 17, 2014).)

“The reason for this is that garnering direct evidence of employment discrimination [or retaliation] inherently is a challenging task . . .Consequently, the employee is not required to produce direct evidence of discrimination [or retaliation]; rather, indirect and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove the [employee's] case." (See id.)

“That said, the employee still must do more than simply cast doubt upon the employer's justification." (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “the third prong of a prima facie case of retaliation—that there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action[, ] —may be demonstrated through direct or indirect evidence.” (See State v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC 07-7048, at *1 (R.I. Super. Oct. 17, 2014).)

It is also well settled that “in order for causation to be established for a complainant's prima facie case of retaliation, the employee must show a nexus between the conduct and the alleged retaliatory act.” (See City of Providence v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, C.A. No. PC-13-5757, at *10 (R.I. Super. July 25, 2017).)