Date: Jan 12, 2026

Andrews v. DeJoy: Notes, Scrutiny, and “Actual Knowledge” Are Not Enough—Title VII Retaliation Requires Evidence Linking Protected Activity to Discipline Where Performance Issues Predate the Complaint

1. Introduction

In Monica Andrews v. Louis DeJoy, No. 24-2218 (4th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026) (unpublished), the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) on a former employee’s Title VII retaliation claim. Monica Andrews, a Black woman and USPS clerk, alleged her postmaster retaliated against her after she filed administrative complaints (including an EEOC complaint) by subjecting her to heightened scrutiny, issuing suspensions, and ultimately removing her.

The central issues were whether Andrews could establish (1) a prima facie causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse actions and, if so, (2) whether USPS’s stated performance-based reasons were pretext for retaliation—especially given Andrews’s reliance on a “heightened scrutiny” theory reminiscent of E.E.O.C. v. Navy Federal Credit Union.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Circuit held that Andrews failed to meet her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court concluded she did not establish the retaliation claim’s causal-connection element and, alternatively, did not show pretext. The record showed extensive, documented performance and conduct issues both before and after the supervisor learned of the EEOC complaint. The court rejected Andrews’s argument that the supervisor’s post-EEOC notetaking, alleged “increased scrutiny,” and disputed deposition memory created an inference of retaliation.

The court also noted (without deciding on that basis) USPS’s argument that Andrews’s opening brief inadequately developed the legal issues and risked waiver on appeal.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Standards of Review and Summary Judgment

Schulman v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 90 F.4th 236 (4th Cir. 2024), and Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200 (4th Cir. 2022): The court relied on these cases for the de novo standard and the requirement to construe facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant at summary judgment—yet still affirmed because the evidentiary gap was dispositive.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a): Provided the governing rule: summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Title VII Retaliation Framework

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): Supplied the burden-shifting structure used because Andrews proceeded circumstantially rather than through direct evidence.
Foster v. Univ. of Md.-Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015), and Barnhill v. Bondi, 138 F.4th 123 (4th Cir. 2024): Provided the elements of a prima facie retaliation case and framed causation as a required threshold.
Roberts v. Glenn Indus. Grp., Inc., 998 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2021): Anchored two key propositions used by the panel: (1) once the employer articulates legitimate reasons, the plaintiff must show pretext; and (2) as a threshold for causation, the decisionmaker must have actual knowledge of the protected activity.
Alberti v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 65 F.4th 151 (4th Cir. 2023), quoting Lettieri v. Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2007): These cases supplied the two routes for proving causation: temporal proximity or other evidence showing continuing retaliatory conduct/animus. The court cited them to clarify that lack of tight timing is not always fatal—but found Andrews still lacked evidence tying her protected activity to the adverse actions.

Appellate Waiver for Undeveloped Briefing

Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int'l LLC, 856 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2017), quoting Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 2015), and Moreno v. Bosholm, 151 F.4th 543 (4th Cir. 2025): The panel highlighted that merely reciting facts without developed legal analysis risks waiver. Although the court ultimately decided on the merits, the discussion serves as a pointed reminder: Title VII appeals require argument, not just narrative.
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A): Reinforced the obligation to provide “contentions and the reasons for them,” supported by authority and record citations.

The “Heightened Scrutiny” Comparator Case

E.E.O.C. v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2005): This was Andrews’s centerpiece. The Fourth Circuit distinguished it: Navy Federal involved record evidence of an “elaborate and explicit plan” to subject the employee to heightened scrutiny and create a paper trail to justify retaliatory termination. In Andrews, the court found no comparable evidence of a retaliatory scheme; instead, performance documentation existed before the protected activity and continued thereafter in similar form.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

Prima facie causation failed. Even accepting that Andrews engaged in protected activity and suffered adverse actions, the court found the record did not support the required causal link. The decision emphasizes that causation is not established by suspicion or post-complaint “papering,” but by evidence connecting protected activity to adverse action.
Pre-complaint performance documentation undercut any inference of retaliatory motive. The opinion treats the continuity of performance issues as a key factual counterweight: documented tardiness, conduct concerns, and discipline predated the EEOC notice to the supervisor. That continuity made it difficult to infer the later discipline was retaliatory rather than consistent enforcement.
Notetaking and alleged “increased scrutiny,” without more, was insufficient. The court rejected the proposition that post-EEOC notetaking alone shows retaliatory animus, distinguishing Navy Federal as requiring evidence of a purposeful scheme. The court also found the notes did not demonstrate a materially different level of scrutiny after the protected activity than before.
Deposition inconsistency did not carry causation or pretext. Andrews argued that the supervisor’s deposition testimony—claiming he was unaware of the EEOC claim when he began taking notes—was contradicted by email evidence and supported an inference of retaliatory motive. The court treated this as, at most, a memory issue “taken years later,” not evidence that the termination rationale was false or retaliatory.
The email deactivation did not advance the retaliation theory. Even if arbitrary, it was undisputed Andrews did not need email to perform her job duties; the court therefore found it could not be linked to a retaliatory measure in any way that moved the causation or pretext analysis.

3.3. Impact

Although unpublished and “not binding precedent,” the decision is instructive in several practical ways for retaliation litigation in the Fourth Circuit:

“Heightened scrutiny” claims require strong proof of retaliatory design. Litigants invoking E.E.O.C. v. Navy Federal Credit Union should expect courts to demand concrete evidence of a plan (e.g., explicit instructions, suspiciously staged evaluations, or coordinated efforts to manufacture discipline), not merely increased documentation following a complaint.
Pre-complaint discipline is powerful evidence against causation and pretext. Where an employer can show comparable performance concerns and enforcement both before and after the protected activity, plaintiffs will struggle to show that protected activity “explains” the adverse action.
Appellate briefing must connect facts to legal elements. The panel’s waiver discussion signals that in retaliation appeals—especially from summary judgment—appellants must directly confront each independent ground supporting judgment (prima facie failure and/or pretext failure) with developed argument.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Protected activity: Actions like filing an EEOC complaint or complaining about discrimination/harassment.
Adverse employment action (retaliation): An employer action that would likely deter a reasonable worker from complaining—e.g., suspension or termination.
Prima facie case (McDonnell Douglas): The initial showing required to create an inference of retaliation: protected activity + adverse action + causal link.
Causation: Proof that the adverse action happened because of the protected activity, shown through timing or other evidence of retaliatory animus.
Actual knowledge: The decisionmaker must actually know about the employee’s protected complaint; otherwise, the complaint cannot be the reason for the decision.
Pretext: Evidence that the employer’s stated reason (e.g., performance problems) is not the real reason, but a cover for retaliation.
Summary judgment: A ruling without a trial when the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party on a material issue.

5. Conclusion

Monica Andrews v. Louis DeJoy underscores a core retaliation principle: allegations of post-complaint “scrutiny,” documentation, or managerial hostility do not, by themselves, establish causation or pretext—especially where the employer can point to well-documented performance and conduct issues that predate the protected activity and continue afterward. The decision also serves as an appellate practice warning that factual recitations must be tied to the governing legal elements and the district court’s independent grounds for judgment.