Comprehensive documentation establishing that the June 10, 2025 PIP and subsequent adverse actions were retaliatory responses to protected activities under Title VII, FMLA, and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
Under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation by proving four elements. Once established, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action.
The evidence documented below satisfies all four elements of the prima facie case, creating a legal presumption of retaliation that shifts the burden to Mayo Clinic to articulate a legitimate reason—which they cannot do given the "off the books" admission and clean personnel file.
Formal email to Brian Fanelli requesting removal from dysfunctional ORBIT team assignment, citing being "set up to fail" with accountability but no authority.
Professional emails to Sarah Kossel (2nd-level manager) requesting clarity on TReX assignment. Brian yelled at claimant for emailing his boss. Sarah responded supportively:"First off, no need to apologize. I want us to be a team where you can reach out and ask questions."
Returned from protected FMLA leave. Provided requested TReX assessment information to Sarah Kossel, then was immediately excluded from the meeting where her own work was being presented.
Filed with Mayo Clinic Compliance Office seeking protection against targeted effort to keep her out of the workplace. This filing preceded the October 3 administrative leave by 7 days.
Formal complaint filed with HR/Compliance Office against leadership team (Sarah Kossel, Brian Fanelli) documenting retaliation, exclusion, and hostile work environment.
Text message communication using the term "constructively discharged" - explicitly invoking legal protections and documenting intolerable working conditions.
Under Eighth Circuit precedent (Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n), temporal proximity of less than two weeks creates a strong inference of causation. Your evidence demonstrates gaps as short as <24 hours—among the strongest temporal proximity evidence possible.
| Protected Activity | Adverse Action | Gap | Legal Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 4-6 "Request for Alignment" | June 10 PIP | 4-5 DAYS | |
| Sept 25 FMLA Return | Sept 25 Meeting Exclusion | SAME DAY | |
| Sept 29 Formal HR Complaint | Oct 3 Admin Leave | 4 DAYS | |
| Oct 2 Protected Text | Oct 3 Admin Leave | <24 HOURS |
The <24 hour gap between the October 2 protected text and October 3 administrative leave creates an irrefutable inference of causation. Combined with the 4-5 day gaps for the PIP and formal complaint, this evidence establishes causation as a matter of law under Eighth Circuit precedent.
Both decision-makers (Brian Fanelli and Sarah Kossel) had direct, personal knowledge of all protected activities. There is no "cat's paw" defense available—the same individuals who received the protected communications made the retaliatory decisions.
"The PIP is formal between us, but I'm not submitting to HR or anyone for documentation."
Legal significance: Direct admission of consciousness of guilt, procedural fraud, and intent to harm without accountability. Proves PIP was never legitimate performance management.
Mayo HR (Tricha Cox, December 2025) confirmed personnel file contains ONLY positive reviews. No documentation of performance issues prior to protected activity.
Legal significance: Destroys any claim of pre-existing performance concerns. Proves PIP was manufactured as pretext.
"Incredibly talented individual... great team player... fast learner... hard-working and always volunteering to help out... incredibly professional and positive to interact with."
Legal significance: Establishes baseline of excellent performance. Rating of "Achieves Expectations" across ALL competencies directly contradicts later PIP and proves performance issues were manufactured.
22-page investigation summary recommended PIP suspension. December 19, 2025 HR determination: All allegations "UNABLE TO BE SUBSTANTIATED".
Legal significance: Mayo's own internal processes validated claimant's position and found no basis for adverse actions. Complete vindication destroys any legitimate business reason defense.
| Prima Facie Element | Status | Evidence Strength |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Protected Activity | 4 documented activities with primary source evidence | |
| 2. Adverse Action | PIP, exclusion, admin leave, constructive discharge | |
| 3. Causal Connection | 4-5 days, same day, <24 hours temporal proximity | |
| 4. Employer Knowledge | Direct recipients were decision-makers |
The evidence establishes a prima facie case of retaliation as a matter of law.
The 4-5 day temporal proximity alone creates a legal presumption of causation under Eighth Circuit precedent. Combined with Brian Fanelli's "off the books" admission, the clean personnel file, and Mayo's own investigation recommending PIP suspension, this case presents rare direct evidence of retaliatory intent that most plaintiffs never obtain.
The burden now shifts to Mayo Clinic to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse actions—which they cannot do given the documented evidence.