DeMasters v$.$ Carilion Clinic, $796$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $409(4$th Cir. $2015).$ See pg$.99-100$ in the textbook for fact pattern.

$1.$ What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

$2.$ Which actions were taken by DeMasters? Why did they constitute protected activity under Title VII?

$3.$ What is the $$managerial rule$?$ What is the argument for having such a rule? Is that argument at all convincing? Why does the appeals court decline to apply the rule in this case?

$4.$ This decision focuses on the first element of a retaliation claim$$whether the plaintiff engaged in protected activity. Would the other elements of a retaliation claim be satisfied? Why or why not?

$5.$ What are some practical implications of this case for human resources managers?