Sánchez established a prima facie case. Sanchez-Rodriguez, 728 F.Supp.2d at 45. However, the court then held that AT & T had demonstrated non-discriminatory reasons for its adverse employment actions and that Sánchez had failed to show that these reasons were pretextual. Id. at 46. On appeal, Sánchez argues that the district court incorrectly concluded that Sánchez had not shown that AT & T’s reasons were pretextual. We review the district court’s decision de novo, and we can affirm it on any ground apparent in the record. Cahoon, 647 F.3d at 22. Sánchez easily satisfies the first prong of the prima facie case, since he engaged in protected activity by filing a charge with the EEOC. See, e.g., Mariani-Colón v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. ex rel. Chertoff, 511 F.3d 216, 223 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Sánchez points to three different adverse
holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim holding that plaintiff stated a discrimination claim despite not including a discrimination heading in eeoc complaint because the facts included in eeoc complaint were sufficient to trigger an investigation into whether plaintiff suffered an adverse action because of his religion holding eeoc could maintain action alleging discrimination against male employees in the administration of the retirement system although original charge was filed by female alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex holding that a decisionmakers own statement  that the plaintiff would not receive a pay increase because she engaged in protected activity  is direct evidence of discrimination recognizing that plaintiff undoubtedly engaged in a protected activity when he contacted the eeoc alleging discrimination