or constructively) of the protected activity; (3)she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action. Pearl v. DST Sys., Inc., No. 06-918, 2008 WL 8602367, *13 (W.D.Mo.2008). If she makes such prima facie showing, the defendant can still “avoid liability if it can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the protected activity.” Id. (i) Plaintiffs Claims PreDating August 8, 2008 are Time Barred. A federal district court “can only conduct a ‘de novo review’ of those [SOX whistleblower] claims that have been administratively exhausted.” Willis v. Vie Fin. Grp., No. 04-435, 2004 WL 1774575, *6 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 6, 2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Hanna v. WCI Cmts., 348 F.Supp.2d
holding fact that a constitutional claim is so novel that it is not reasonable for counsel to raise it until after the supreme court articulates that such claim is a basis for federal habeas relief constitutes cause for failure to raise that claim in accordance with applicable state procedures holding that district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim holding plaintiffs could have filed administrative claim and then de novo claim in district court seeking a determination regarding their obligations to the fdic holding that plaintiffs failure to raise a claim in an administrative complaint with osha precluded pursuing that claim in district court holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court