Unlawful Action Under Title VII   (For retaliation under the FLSA)
 -- retaliation against an individual for 

                    (1) filing a charge of discrimination, 

                    (2) participating in an investigation, or 

                    (3) opposing discriminatory practices.

 [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment ... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter. 

Proving Retaliation

In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under this statute, a plaintiff must show 

                     (1) that he engaged in protected activity;
                     (2) an adverse employment action; and
                      (3) a causal connection between the activity and the adverse action.

 Thompson v.. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 650 (4th Cir.2002); Anderson v. G.D.C., Inc., 281 F.3d 452, 458 (4th Cir.2002). The Fourth Circuit has expansively interpreted what constitutes protected activity under the statute's participation clause, indicating that "the provision is meant to sweep broadly." Glover v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir.1997)). To qualify as an "adverse employment action," the employer must have engaged in activity adversely affecting the "terms, conditions, or benefits of employment." Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir.2001)

For Example -- Recent Decision

Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for opposing or complaining about an unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (a). To prove a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show she was engaged in a protected action, the employer took adverse employment action against her, and there was a causal connection between the protected action and the adverse employment action. Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1228 (4th Cir. 1998). Retaliation claims are also subject to the McDonnell-Douglas analytical framework. Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 281 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000); Karpel, 134 F.3d at 1227-28. Once the prima facie case of retaliation has been proven, the defendant must put forth a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Nichols v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., 251 F.3d 496, 502 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing McDonnell Douglas, supra). The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show the proffered reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Id. The plaintiff must show that the proffered reason is "'unworthy of credence' or [offer] other forms of  circumstantial evidence sufficiently probative of [retaliation]." Mereish, 359 F.3d at 336  (quoting Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981)).Greene v. Swain County P'ship for Health, 342 F. Supp. 2d 442, 453 (D.N.C., 2004)