“The company’s knowledge of Vincer’s protected activity, coupled with a change in its response to Vincer’s problematic behavior mere days after the protected activity, and the absence of any investigation, analysis, or documentation in his personnel file to otherwise explain the termination, constitutes substantial circumstantial evidence that the protected activity was at least a motivating factor in Vincer’s termination,” said Judge Theodore A. McKee, who authored the opinion.

Click Here To Read The Full Article