“I do not think that [Rountree] should have worked against me or his employer in assisting a terminated employee in filing a complaint against his employer.” (Id.) Based on this admission, a reasonable jury could conclude that Newbill retaliated against Rountree because of plaintiffs Title VII protected activity, and that plaintiffs August 20, 2002 detail was causally linked to Rountree’s filing of a sworn statement in support of Prince’s complaint on May 7, 2002. (Def.’s Ex. 2 at 239.) Although defendant argues that it acted against Rountree for legitimate reasons, “[a] plaintiff may always prove a claim of [retaliation] by introducing direct evidence of [retaliatory] intent.” McGill v. Munoz, 203 F.3d 843, 845 (D.C.Cir.2000). See also Forman v. Small, 271 F.3d 285, 300 (D.C.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In contrast to plaintiffs allegations of
holding plaintiff had exhausted sex discrimination claim because inter alia she had identified an instance of disparate treatment in an attachment to her eeo complaint holding that an officials failure to forward a complaint letter on the basis that plaintiff had filed an eeo complaint was direct evidence of retaliation holding plaintiff had exhausted claim because his attachment to his eeo complaint set forth sufficient factual details holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination holding plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies based on additional sheets attached to eeo complaint