Charles Julien was hired as an English teacher and began coaching the boys’ basketball team at East St. John High School in 2017. On October 28, 2018, the Principal and Athletic Director of the School ended Julien’s tenure as basketball coach following a losing season and an investigation into potential violations of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association rules. The investigation included alleged violations of cash handling protocols and requiring students to practice beyond the limits imposed by the Athletic Association.
Four days after his dismissal as coach, Julien filed a formal complaint with the School Board’s Superintendent, alleging that Julien was sexually harassed by the School’s principal. The complaint was ultimately unsubstantiated.
On November 28, 2018, the Superintendent reinstated Julien as the basketball coach so that the boys’ team could compete in the upcoming season. Beginning in April 2019, Julien claimed that the Principal and Athletic director engaged in retaliatory actions as a result of him filing the sexual harassment complaint. In particular, Julien alleged that the team was locked out of gym facilities, that Julien was required to acquire additional insurance for use of the facilities, that the School did not allow the team to participate in an athletics physical education class, and that Julien was ultimately removed from the head coach position. Julien claimed that these retaliatory actions continued until September 2019, when he was again removed from the position as head coach after another losing season.
Julien filed a complaint alleging, among other claims, retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the School and Julien appealed.
To establish a case for Title VII retaliation, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. To establish the causal connection, the protected activity and the adverse employment action must have “very close temporal proximity.” In 2020, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held in another case that two-and-a-half months was not within the bounds of very close temporal proximity.
Here, the Court of Appeals concluded that the length of time between the sexual harassment complaint and the alleged retaliatory actions ranged between six and eleven months, and were therefore too lengthy to infer a causal connection.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.
Julien v. St. John the Baptist Par. Sch. Sys. (5th Cir. 2024) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22865.
Note: In retaliation cases, courts often look to the amount of time between the underlying protected conduct and the employer’s adverse action. Schools should keep in mind that the closer together that the conduct and the adverse action occur, the more likely that the Court will infer retaliation.