Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4^th 1054 (9^th Cir. 2024)

Meyer Kama, who was formerly a transportation security officer with the TSA, alleged Title VII retaliation after he was terminated for failing to cooperate with an investigation into whether Kama and other officers improperly received compensation for serving as personal representatives to other employees during internal agency investigations. Kama contended his employment was terminated 56 days after he complained about being denied intermittent leave under the FMLA – Kama claimed the termination had “temporal proximity” to his EEO complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that “temporal proximity” alone is not enough to establish retaliation in every case. The Court held that 56 days was a relatively long period of “proximity” as compared to “only a few days” as existed in the cases cited in Kama’s brief. Further, there was a relatively “close temporal link” between Kama’s noncooperation with the investigation and the termination of his employment. Finally, the Court recognized that the TSA must be given “wide latitude” to determine the terms of employment of its screeners. Compare Cal. Labor Code §§ 98.6(b)(1), 1102.5, and 1197.5 (rebuttable presumption of retaliation if employer takes adverse action against employee within 90 days of protected activity).