Stroud v. Greystar Management Services, LP, 8:11-cv-00721

Stroud began as a Resident Services Management employee for JPI on June 7, 2007.
In December 2008 Stroud wrote a complaint letter about Reyes’s leave denial and treatment of coworkers and asserted concerns about fairness and creed.
January 2009 HR directives directed Stroud to refer concerns to management; Greystar assumed facility management in January 2009.
March 2009 Stroud received a warning for discussing employee concerns and later disputed it; she alleged retaliation for prior actions.
September 2009 a vacancy for Operations Manager arose; Stroud did not apply, though she believed she was qualified and that the March 2009 warning affected eligibility.
Stroud filed an EEOC complaint in October 2009; Greystar terminated Stroud on June 7, 2010 for insubordination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stroud’s letter constituted protected activity under the FMLA	Stroud opposed employer practices she believed unlawful under the FMLA.	Letter expressed generalized concerns about fairness, not tied to FMLA rights or illegal activity.	No protected activity; letter was generalized, not tied to FMLA violations.
Whether Stroud suffered an adverse employment action	Termination biased against her for engaging in protected activity.	Termination based on insubordination, not protected activity.	Yes, termination was an adverse action; but other elements fail.
Whether a causal connection existed between protected activity and termination	Seventeen-month gap shows retaliation for earlier complaints.	No evidence tying the timing to the complaint; too distant in time.	No; insufficient temporal proximity to infer causation.
Whether Greystar’s reason for termination was pretextual	Reason given was a pretext for FMLA retaliation.	Termination for continued insubordinate conduct; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.	Plaintiff failed to show pretext; evidence insufficient to prove retaliation.

St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (burden-shifting framework in Title VII applies to FMLA retaliation)
Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) (comports with McDonnell Douglas framework for FMLA retaliation)
Nichols v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., 251 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2001) (further elaboration on prima facie elements and pretext)
Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 1998) (causation via temporal proximity; limits on inference from delay)
Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998) (causal analysis and protected activity standard in retaliation claims)
Wright v. Southwest Airlines, 319 F. App’x 232 (4th Cir. 2009) (stands for proximity-based inference in retaliation cases)