Sandra Kurtz v. Department of the Army, 423 F. App'x 572

Plaintiff Sandra Kurtz, a health technician at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital, alleges Title VII retaliation against her employer.
A meeting on April 2, 2004 and a subsequent ban from LASIK surgeries in spring 2004 mark the outset of contested retaliatory events.
A series of incidents between 2004 and 2006—emergency door incident, purse incident, recycle-bin incident, and a formal counseling—are alleged retaliation tied to her involvement in internal meetings.
Plaintiff first contacted an EEO counselor on May 5–9, 2004 and May 9, 2005, with the administrative record showing several events occurring outside the 45-day exhaust window.
The district court concluded most claims were time-barred, except possibly the recycle-bin incident; the court then granted summary judgment for defendants after discovery.
After amendment, the district court and the Sixth Circuit addressed timeliness, tolling, waiver, and whether the remaining timely claims supported retaliation merits.
The final agency decision denying claims was issued September 29, 2006, and Kurtz filed suit December 21, 2006, triggering review of the timeliness and merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of exhausted retaliation claims	Kurtz contends some claims were timely or tolled.	Most claims barred by 45-day rule; agency did not waive untimeliness.	Timeliness upheld; only certains claims timely; others time-barred.
Equitable tolling and waiver of untimeliness	Equitable tolling or waiver should apply due to notice and filings.	Equitable tolling limited; agency did not waive untimely claims.	Waiver not shown; tolling applied only sparingly.
Prima facie retaliation showing	Plaintiff asserts protected activity and causal links to adverse actions.	Evidence insufficient to show adverse action or causation; some actions not materially adverse.	Only certain acts could be considered retaliation; others not materially adverse.
Additional, unpleaded retaliation claims	Two extra claims should be analyzed despite pleadings.	Claims not pleaded; improper at summary judgment stage.	District court did not consider them; even if considered, judgment affirmed for other reasons.
Causation and material adversity standard application	Protected activity caused adverse actions under Burlington Northern standard.	Hiding purse/bin and related acts not materially adverse; not sufficient causation.	Actions not sufficiently adverse to satisfy retaliation standard.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard: ‘materially adverse’ conduct requires more than petty slights)
Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 348 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2003) (retaliation/causation; protected activity can be shown via participation clause)
Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2009) (causation and evidence for retaliation; knowledge of protected activity)
Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493 (6th Cir. 1987) (pretext and retaliation proof standards in Sixth Circuit)