5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 11.11

A. Committee Notes

A plaintiff may also allege that he or she suffered

an adverse employment action in retaliation for engaging in an activity protected by the ADA. See, e.g., Seaman

v. CSPH, Inc. , 179 F.3d 297, 301 (5th Cir. 1999); see

also Pattern Jury Instruction 11.5. (Title VII—

Retaliation). A Title VII retaliation claim requires but-for causation. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar ,

133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013). After Nassar, the Fifth

Circuit in Feist held that retaliation claims under the

ADA also require but-for causation. Feist v. La., Dep’t

of Justice , 730 F.3d 450, 454 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Seaman, 179 F.3d at 301 (“If such a reason is advanced,

the plaintiff must adduce sufficient evidence that the

proffered reason is a pretext for retaliation. Ultimately,

the employee must show that ‘but for’ the protected

activity, the adverse employment action would not have

occurred.”)).

B. Charge

Plaintiff [name] claims that Defendant [name]

retaliated against [him/her] because [he/she] took steps

to enforce [his/her] lawful rights under federal law

prohibiting discrimination based on disability in the

workplace.

The law that prohibits discrimination in the

workplace also prohibits an employer from retaliating

against an employee because that employee has asserted rights or made complaints under that law.

Plaintiff [name] claims that Defendant [name]

[specify adverse employment action] because Plaintiff

[name] [specify protected activity].

Defendant [name] denies Plaintiff [name]’s claim

and asserts that [specify contentions].