Propp v. Counterpart International, 39 A.3d 856

Propp sues Counterpart International and LeLei LeLaulu alleging DCHRA retaliation and discrimination.
He was terminated on Oct. 12, 2004 after being told there were four termination/ severance options, some conditioned on a release of claims.
Two severance options did not require a release; Propp declined all options and was terminated without severance.
Counterpart later indicated it would negotiate a consulting agreement but only if Propp signed a broad release of all claims.
Counterpart purportedly abandoned funding for Propp's Counterpart Communities initiative after Propp complained of discrimination.
The trial court granted summary judgment on retaliation; the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial on retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a prima facie case of retaliation under DCHRA?	Propp showed protected activity, adverse action, and causation.	Counterpart argues no prima facie retaliation due to business reasons.	Yes, a prima facie case was established.
Did Counterpart offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions?	Counterpart's reliance on prudence and funding concerns is pretextual.	There were legitimate business reasons for not pursuing funding and for conditioning negotiations on a release.	Counterpart proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, but issues of pretext remained for jury.
Is there a causal connection between protected activity and the adverse actions?	Timing and conduct show retaliation after discrimination claim.	Actions were motivated by prudent business decisions, not retaliation.	Yes, the record supports a causal link for purposes of summary judgment.
Can the retaliation claim survive under McDonnell Douglas pretext framework?	Evidence could show pretext and retaliatory motive.	Business justifications could defeat pretext.	Issue of material fact exists; summary judgment reversed and remanded.

Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354 (D.C.1993) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to retaliation under DCHRA)
Chang v. Institute for Public-Private Partnerships, Inc., 846 A.2d 318 (D.C.2004) ( McDonnell Douglas standard applied to retaliation claims)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action standard involves materially adverse actions that could dissuade complaints)
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D. Md. 2006) (release demands can be facially retaliatory; no legitimate nondiscriminatory reason shown)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for retaliation cases)