Witkowich v. United States Marshals Service, 424 F. App'x 20

Witkowich, a long-time USMS employee, filed an EEOC charge and age discrimination suit under the ADEA against USMS and officials.
The district court granted summary judgment on the discrimination claim and left Witkowich’s retaliation claim for amendment.
Witkowich amended to allege retaliation for filing the EEOC charge and suit, seeking to advance his career, retain benefits, and avoid demeaning treatment.
The district court concluded the alleged retaliatory actions were not adverse under the ADEA and offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory justifications for each action.
The Second Circuit reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo and affirms if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie retaliation established under ADEA?	Witkowich asserts a prima facie case.	Defendants contend actions were not adverse and lacked causal link.	No prima facie case; actions not adverse.
Were the transfers retaliatory?	Transfers were retaliatory consequences of filing suit.	No causal connection shown.	No causal link; not retaliatory.
Pretext for retaliation?	Defendants’ reasons were pretextual.	Reasons were legitimate nondiscriminatory justifications.	No pretext proven.
Standard for summary judgment applied?	District court should apply favorable inferences for summary judgment.	Proper standard de novo review with no genuine disputes.	Standard applied properly; summary judgment affirmed.

Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse-action standard under Burlington Northern framework)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse-action inquiry for retaliation)
Holt v. KMI- Continental, Inc., 95 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1996) (pretext analysis for retaliation claims)