Rivera-Colon v. Mills, 635 F.3d 9

Rivera, a SBA employee since 1989, alleged retaliatory actions under Title VII based on gender discrimination and harassment complaints.
The district court granted summary judgment for SBA; Rivera appeals only the retaliation claims.
A 2003 two-day suspension was imposed for unprofessional conduct at a training session; she alleged it was pretextual retaliation.
Rivera made an anonymous internal complaint of harassment in 2002; SBA argued supervisors were unaware of the complaint when suspending.
In 2003 SBA transferred many employees under a new policy and Rivera was offered separation incentives for relocation; she failed to relocate.
Rivera ultimately was terminated in January 2004 after not accepting the reassignment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was suspension retaliation based on protected activity?	Rivera argues contemporaneous retaliation for anonymous complaint.	SBA shows suspension occurred before knowledge of complaint by supervisors.	Yes, no material fact on causation.
Were reassignment and termination retaliatory or policy-based?	Rivera claims retaliation for anonymous complaint and EEOC charge.	Actions were under a generally applicable agency policy affecting many employees.	Reassignment/termination not retaliatory; policy-based; no triable issue.

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (establishes standard for summary judgment and burden shifting)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (reiterates burden on movant in summary judgment)
Gu v. Boston Police Dep’t, 312 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2002) (prima facie retaliation elements)
Collazo v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Mfg., Inc., 617 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2010) (summary judgment on retaliation requires showing non-retaliatory reason plus evidence of retaliation)
Rosario v. Dep’t of Army, 607 F.3d 241 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for evidence viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)