A recent Fourth Circuit decision shows how strong documentation can make or break a retaliation case.
TL;DR: An employee claimed that her employer retaliated after she raised race concerns. The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer because contemporaneous records showed performance issues and leadership misalignment that began well before the protected activity. Timing alone could not prove causation, and the employee did not show pretext. One judge dissented, viewing the record as presenting factual disputes.
The dispute started long before the complaint
The employee worked as both a faculty member and a program director at an academic institution. After a new leader arrived in 2018, colleagues raised concerns about the employee’s leadership style and collaboration. The leader documented those issues, consulted HR, and even suggested that the employee step down from the director role in the fall of 2019, months before any protected activity occurred.
The protected activity came several months later. In February 2020, the employee spoke at a campus event about racism and shared personal experiences as the only Black leader in the school. In March 2020, she submitted a self-evaluation alleging that her leadership role was being diminished not because of the quality of her work but because of the color of her skin. The leader responded by providing information about how to report discrimination formally and then continued working with HR to address ongoing management concerns.
By June 2020, the employer chose not to renew the employee’s supplemental appointment as director, though she remained on the faculty. The nonrenewal ended the administrative stipend but did not affect her teaching position. She claimed that the timing of the decision showed unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
Why the employer won
The appellate court agreed that the employer had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the nonrenewal and that timing alone could not establish causation. The record included written complaints from staff, HR consultations dating back to 2019, and two performance evaluations: an “excellent” 2019 review tied to prior goals, followed by a lower 2020 score that documented communication and leadership concerns.
The court found that the decisionmaker had begun addressing these issues well before the protected activity and consistently cited the same reasons: poor fit with the department’s vision and ongoing management problems. The employer’s paper trail made it impossible to infer that retaliation was the real motive.
Employer takeaways you can use today
- Build a chronology, not a recollection.
Create a dated trail such as feedback, HR notes, evaluations, and emails. A clear timeline that begins before any complaint can undercut claims of retaliatory motive. - Keep your reasons consistent across the record.
What you tell HR, what appears in evaluations, and what you communicate to the employee should all line up. Shifting explanations such as first citing performance and then saying it was budgetary can suggest pretext even when the underlying decision was legitimate. - Separate protected activity from the decision record.
Continue normal processes after a complaint, but ground any employment decisions in documentation that already exists and aligns with legitimate business needs. - Document decisions when they are made.
Record the reasoning for each employment action at the time it happens, not later. Notes, emails, or HR summaries created in the moment show what actually drove the decision and make it far harder for an employee to claim that retaliation was the real motive.
The bottom line
If performance and fit are the real issues, prove it on paper. Solid, pre-existing documentation remains the strongest defense to a retaliation claim.