it was possible to extend Sanders’ contract; rather, it asserts that there was no commitment to do so. The VA also points to the dismissal of several other workers whose contracts had expired around the same time period and argues that is evidence that there was no retaliatory motive. The VA’s argument may well be accepted by a factfinder. However, the factfin-der could also accept Sanders’ testimony that a promise of continued employment was made to him and that the VA reneged only after he charged his employer with discrimination. The record would therefore support a finding that had Sanders not filed a complaint, his temporary posi tion would have been extended as promised. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 58, 126 5.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations
holding that discrimination and retaliation claims are considered distinct types of claims that must be raised independently if the retaliation occurred prior to the filing of the administrative charge holding that discrimination is unlawful even if only one of several motives for adverse employment action holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc holding that title viis antiretaliation provision prohibits any employer action that might dissuade  a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge and thus covers a broader range of employer conduct than its substantive discrimination provision holding that in retaliation case the requisite adverse action is one which well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination