I. Introduction

The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (“CAA”) contains an anti-retaliation provision, Section 207, which prohibits an employing office from retaliating against any covered employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by the CAA or participating in any kind of proceeding under the CAA. Several of the statutes made applicable to the Legislative Branch by the CAA also contain their own anti-retaliation provisions, which may apply to covered employees.

II. Elements of a Retaliation Claim

The anti-retaliation provision of the CAA provides that “It shall be unlawful for an employing office to intimidate, take reprisal against, or otherwise discriminate against, any covered employee because the covered employee has opposed any practice made unlawful by this chapter, or because the covered employee has initiated proceedings, made a charge, or testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a hearing or other proceeding under this chapter.” 2 U.S.C. § 1317(a). “The remedy available for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be such legal or equitable remedy as may be appropriate to redress a violation of subsection (a) of this section.” 2 U.S.C. § 1317(b).

It is important to note that the federal courts and the OOC Board of Directors interpret the CAA’s retaliation provision differently: the courts apply the Title VII framework for retaliation cases, whereas the Board has developed its own independent formulation of the elements of a retaliation claim._¹

1) Elements – OOC Board

a) Britton v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 02-AC-20 (CV, RP), 2005 WL 6236944 (OOC Board May 23, 2005) – To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Section 207 of the CAA, a complainant must show that: (1) he engaged in activity protected by Section 207(a); (2) the employing office took action against him that is “reasonably likely to deter” protected activity; and (3) a causal connection existed between the two.