Dive Brief:
- A district court allowed a former Duke University’s employee’s retaliation claims to proceed Wednesday, holding that a jury could conclude that the timing between the plaintiff’s dismissal and her sexual harassment report — along with a university’s separate investigation into her work — supported an inference of causation.
- The plaintiff in Mulugu v. Duke University, a researcher, reported harassment by her supervisor days before university officials began an investigation of both the plaintiff and the supervisor regarding their handling of research data. Duke ultimately terminated the plaintiff for alleged research misconduct.
- A magistrate judge recommended in January that the court dismiss Duke’s request for summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding that the timing and handling of the investigation could support a finding of retaliation. The court set an approximate trial date of June 2026. Duke did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
Employees alleging retaliation may point to numerous types of evidence to support their claims. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, this may include evidence of suspiciously close timing between an employee’s protected activity and a materially adverse action.
In Mulugu, that magistrate judge noted that the plaintiff filed her harassment complaint on Feb. 28, 2020. Meanwhile, Duke officials opened their research misconduct investigation on March 9 of that year, purportedly in response to concerns raised on Feb. 26. The magistrate judge held that the close proximity of these dates pointed to an issue of material fact.
Similarly, the magistrate judge appeared skeptical of steps taken by Duke officials during the research misconduct investigation. For example, the investigation was said to have continued or re-started at various stages even after an initial finding that “no basis existed to pursue it.”
The judge also noted that an internal investigation of the plaintiff’s supervisor substantiated the plaintiff’s harassment complaint and that the supervisor was subsequently relieved of his duties.
Proximity between adverse actions and protected activity has been a factor in several previous cases, and attorneys previously told HR Dive about the risks involved in disciplining employees who are suspected of misconduct. Employers that find themselves in such situations may need to be prepared to show documentation of any issues or infractions.
In 2022, EEOC alleged that a dental supply company unlawfully fired an employee one day after she reported a manager’s discriminatory conduct. In another case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an HR manager’s firing seven days after returning from leave was not retaliatory because the employer had submitted supporting evidence of the manager’s performance issues as well as complaints about her job performance from various parties.
