General Counsel, P.C.

  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
      • Business Breakups in Virginia
      • Minority Shareholder Protections
      • Emerging Companies
      • Entity Formation
      • Foreign Companies Entering U.S. Market
      • Real Estate and Leases
      • Starting a Business, Licensing & Compliance
      • Registered Agent Services
      • Succession Planning for Business Owners
      • Tax Law Matters
      • Charitable Solicitation Practice Group
      • Intellectual Property
        • Trade Secrets
        • Copyright
        • Trademark
    • Employment Law
      • Employment Documentation
        • Building Your Cornerstone
        • Employee Document Vault
        • Employee Handbook Tuneup Services
        • Guidelines for Hiring or Firing Employees
        • Separation Agreements
      • Drug Testing
        • Drug Testing Your Workforce – Best Practices
        • Laws Affecting Drug Testing Policies
      • Regulatory Issues
        • VA, MD, DC, Rights & Obligations
        • Age Discrimination
        • Americans with Disabilities Act
        • At-Will Employment
        • Fair Labor Standards Act
        • Family Medical Leave Act
        • Pregnancy Discrimination Act
        • Title VII
      • Non-Competition Agreements
        • District of Columbia
        • Maryland
        • Virginia
      • For Employers of Uniformed Services Members
      • Employer Considerations For Government Contractors
      • For Non-Profits
    • Family Law
      • Divorce
        • Grounds for Divorce
          • Fourth Level Menu Sample
        • High Net Divorce
        • Same Sex Divorce
        • Military Divorce
        • Uncontested Divorce
        • Litigation vs. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Divorce
        • Post-Divorce Enforcement and Appeals
        • Alimony and Spousal Support
        • Child Custody
        • Child Support
        • Filing for Divorce in Virginia
        • Divorce Security Clearance
      • Property Division
      • Alimony and Spousal Support
      • Child Support
      • Child Custody and Visitation
      • Marital Agreements
      • International Family Law
      • Domestic Violence and Protective Orders
      • Co-Parenting in Virginia
    • Government Contracts
      • Bid Protests
      • Government Contract Claims and Appeals
      • Getting Government Contracts: Small Business Certification Services
        • 8(a) Small Business
        • HUBZone Small Business
        • SDVOSB Program
        • Veteran-Owned Small Business
        • Women-Owned Small Business
    • Litigation
      • Arbitration, Mediation & Alternative Dispute Resolution Attorneys
      • Commercial & Business Litigation
      • Defamation
      • Employment Disputes
      • Government Contracting Disputes
      • Intellectual Property Disputes
      • Local Counsel
      • Pre-Litigation
    • Estate Planning
      • Estate Planning FAQs
      • Trusts
      • Wills
      • Families With Children
      • Business Succession Planning
      • Asset Protection Planning
      • Celebrity Estate Planning Mistakes
      • Legal Business Contingency Plans
      • Become a Referral Partner
    • Probate Administration
      • Probate is Complex – FAQ and Answers
      • Trust & Estate Litigation
  • About Us
    • Overview
    • Biographies
      • Andrew “Andy” Baxter
      • Matthew Brennan
      • Heba K. Carter
      • Joanna Foard
      • Erika Gnazzo
      • Merritt Green
      • Elizabeth Hart
      • David Kaye
      • Craig Lawless
      • David Proano
      • Evan St. John
    • How We Help
  • Resources
    • Practical Counsel Blog
    • Bid Protest Weekly
    • VetWorking
    • COVID Compliance Plans
    • Virginia COVID Workplace Safety and Health Standards
    • Video Library
    • Webinars
    • Quotes in The News
    • GCPC First Generation Law Student Scholarship
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Make Payments
703-556-0411

Fourth Circuit Dismisses Race Discrimination Case, but Finds Potential Retaliation

Monday, 23 November 2020 / Published in Labor & Employment

Fourth Circuit Dismisses Race Discrimination Case, but Finds Potential Retaliation

Firing as possible retaliation

In a recent case, the Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a claim of racial discrimination, but found that there may be sufficient evidence of retaliatory termination. When the plaintiff was terminated two weeks after speaking with her employer about discriminatory conduct, the court determined that the time frame constituted a “close temporal proximity” that supports a potential inference of causation.

 

Newel Ali v. BC Architects Engineers, PLC

In Newel Ali v. BC Architects Engineers, PLC, Newel Ali, an Arab-American woman, was hired by BC Architects Engineers, PLC (“BC”) as a computer-aided design drafter in March 2015. When a structural engineer with the firm quit, Ali was asked to assume his duties. Later, Ali traveled to Turkey on vacation, and when she returned, a Caucasian male was assigned to the structural engineer position and Ali was reassigned to her previous position. In December 2015, BC was hiring additional structural engineers. Ali indicated her interest in a position, but BC instead hired a Chinese Asian male and another man “of a different race than Ali.” Ali was later offered the position of project coordinator, which she accepted. Ali again traveled to Turkey the following March, and upon her return, she was again demoted to her original position. 

On March 30, Ali spoke with BC owners about her demotion indicating her belief that there was discrimination in the company. On April 15, 2016, Ali emailed the BC owners a letter “documenting discrimination and retaliation within the company.” Ali claimed she experienced gender discrimination and retaliation and mistreatment due to her national origin. Ali was fired an hour after she sent the email. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination and retaliation.

Similar to Title VII, Section 1981 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race. Ali alleged that BC refused to promote her and then fired her because of her race. To state a successful claim of § 1981 race-discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that “but for race” she wouldn’t have suffered the loss of a legally protected right. Here, the court determined that Ali’s allegations were “insufficient” to support a claim of racial discrimination. Additionally, Ali admitted that BC didn’t want to promote her because she was a talented design drafter and BC didn’t want to move her from that position until they found an equally skilled design drafter. The court noted that Ali’s remaining allegations were too speculative and nonspecific.

Section 1981 also prohibits retaliation for “opposing race discrimination.” To establish a claim of retaliation under § 1981, a plaintiff must show that “but for” her participation in protected activity, she would not have suffered a materially adverse employment action. Ali claimed retaliation based on her denied promotion and termination. Ali orally complained about race discrimination about three months before applying for the structural engineer position. The court found that the three-month temporal proximity was “too tenuous to support a reasonable inference of causation.” 

However, the court concluded that Ali had sufficiently alleged a claim for retaliatory termination. The court reasoned that the two weeks between Ali’s March 30th report and her firing constituted a “close temporal proximity” that supports an inference of causation, sufficient to state a claim for retaliatory termination.

What Does Newel Ali v. BC Architects Engineers, PLC Mean for Employers?

The key takeaway from Newel Ali for employers is to be cautious when an employee makes a claim of discrimination and take steps to address any complaints appropriately before making any adverse employment actions. Here, while the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of employment discrimination, it did find there may be sufficient evidence of retaliation. If an employee makes a similar claim, employers should make sure they do not take any adverse employment actions against that employee based on the complaint made. Employers should also be cautious that any adverse employment actions could not be perceived as being made in response to a discrimination complaint. As the court here points out, the time between when an employee makes a complaint and is terminated may be used as a factor when deciding whether sufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation exists. Employers should have policies in place and managers or human resource personnel trained in how to respond to such complaints. Employers must have a non-discriminatory or retaliatory basis for firing employees and evidence of this basis should be clearly detailed in the employee’s file.

If you need more guidance or information, contact the employment law experts at General Counsel, P.C. today at 202-360-4230. Attorneys at General Counsel, PC are specialized in employment law and have experience working with business owners and individuals across Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, specifically in Fairfax County, Arlington, Loudoun County, and Prince William.

  • Tweet

TOP ARTICLE CATEGORIES

  • BUSINESS

  • COVID-19

  • LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • FAMILY LAW

  • GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

  • LITIGATION

Subscribe to Blogs and Updates

Address:

6849 Old Dominion Dr #220
McLean, VA 22101

Hours of Operation:

Mon – Fri, 8AM – 5PM

Phone Number:

+1 703-556-0411


  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • DISCLAIMER
  • SITEMAP
  • CONTACT US
  • MAKE A PAYMENT

General Counsel, P.C. BBB Business Review

© 2023 General Counsel, P.C. | Website Design & Development by High Level Thinkers

TOP