of retaliation, whereupon the burden shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the action. Id. If Defendant MetLife sets forth a legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation for the action, Plaintiff then must show that the employer’s proffered reasons are pretextual, or her claim will fail. Id. Plaintiff can offer proof of pretext by showin th MetLife Human Resources alleging racial harassment by Ms. Gagnon on March 14, 2001. Plaintiff alleges that she complained again about the same type of conduct on April 8, 2002. Although the formal complaint was investigated and no racial motive was found, the informal follow-up complaint was, nevertheless, a “protected activity.” Cf. Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 298 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The question of whether Plaintiff has
holding defendant waived complaint holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity holding that raising a complaint about a violation of an internal policy is not considered protected activity holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing recognizing that complaint to supervisor could constitute protected activity where employer was made aware of such complaint