History Podcasts

Retaliation II - History

Retaliation II  - History

Retaliation II

(Sch.: t. 107; cpl. 76; a. 14 guns)

U.S. warship, Delaware, commanded by Capt. Stephen Decatur, Sr., captured a French privateer, La Croyable, off Great Egg Harbor, N.J., on 7 July 1798. Before her capture, the schooner had been preying upon shipping off the Delaware Capes and had taken a British brigantine and a Philadelphia merchantman, Liberty. She had also boarded and robbed coaster Alezander Hamilton

The U.S. Navy purchased La Croyable on 30 July 1798 manned her at Philadelphia, renamed her Retaliation, and placed her under the command of Lt. William Bainbridge.

Retaliation departed Norfolk on 28 October 1798 with Montezuma and Norfolk and cruised in the West Indies protecting American commerce during the Quasi War with France. On 20 November, French frigates, L'Insurgente and Volontaire overtook the Retaliation while her consorts were away on a chase and forced Bainbridge to surrender the hopelessly out-gunned schooner. However, even as a prisoner the clever young American officer managed to serve his country. He saved Montezu,and Norfolk by convincing the senior French commander that those American warships were too powerful for his frigates and induced him to abandon the chase.

Renamed Magicienne by the French, the schooner again eame into American hands on 28 June, when a broadside from USS 3Icrrimack forced her to haul down her colors. She performed convoy duty in the Caribbean before returning to Philadelphia in August. Her crew was then discharged and the schooner was sold on 29 November 1799 to Thomas and Peter Mackie.


Retaliation

Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. As EEOC works to address this issue, you can help.

Learn more about what constitutes retaliation, why it happens, and how to prevent it. Written by EEOC staff, this article ran in the summer 2015 issue of The Federal Manager.

The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment. Asserting these EEO rights is called "protected activity," and it can take many forms. For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

  • filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
  • communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment
  • answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment
  • refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
  • resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others
  • requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice
  • asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages.

Participating in a complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she did not use legal terminology to describe it.

Engaging in EEO activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers are free to discipline or terminate workers if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such consequences. However, an employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination.

For example, depending on the facts, it could be retaliation if an employer acts because of the employee's EEO activity to:


TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Background

The federal employment discrimination laws depend on the willingness of employees and applicants to challenge discrimination without fear of punishment. Individuals rely on the statutory prohibitions against retaliation, also known as "reprisal," when they complain to an employer about an alleged equal employment opportunity (EEO) violation, provide information as a witness in a company or agency investigation, or file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission or EEOC).

This Enforcement Guidance replaces the EEOC's Compliance Manual Section 8: Retaliation, issued in 1998. Since that time, the Supreme Court and the lower courts have issued numerous significant rulings regarding employment-related retaliation. [1] Further, the percentage of EEOC private sector and state and local government charges alleging retaliation has essentially doubled since 1998. [2] Retaliation is now the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in all sectors, including the federal government workforce. [3]

This document sets forth the Commission's interpretation of the law of retaliation and related issues. In crafting this guidance, the Commission analyzed how courts have interpreted and applied the law to specific facts. Regarding many retaliation issues, the lower courts are uniform in their interpretations of the relevant statutes. This guidance explains the law on such issues with concrete examples, where the Commission agrees with those interpretations. Where the lower courts have not consistently applied the law or the EEOC's interpretation of the law differs in some respect, this guidance sets forth the EEOC's considered position and explains its analysis. The positions explained below represent the Commission's well-considered guidance on its interpretation of the laws it enforces. This document also serves as a reference for staff of the Commission and staff of other federal agencies who investigate, adjudicate, litigate, or conduct outreach on EEO retaliation issues. It will also be useful for employers, employees, and practitioners seeking detailed information about the EEOC's position on retaliation issues, and for employers seeking promising practices.

B. Overview

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes a materially adverse action because an individual has engaged in, or may engage in, activity in furtherance of the EEO laws the Commission enforces. The EEO anti-retaliation provisions ensure that individuals are free to raise complaints of potential EEO violations or engage in other EEO activity without employers taking materially adverse actions in response.

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes a materially adverse action because an individual has engaged, or may engage, in activity in furtherance of the EEO laws the Commission enforces. [4] Each of the EEO laws prohibits retaliation and related conduct: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), [5] the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), [6] Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), [7] Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 501), [8] the Equal Pay Act (EPA), [9] and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). [10] These statutory provisions prohibit government or private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations [11] from retaliating because an individual engaged in "protected activity." [12] Generally, protected activity consists of either participating in an EEO process or opposing conduct made unlawful by an EEO law.

Section II of this guidance explains the concepts of participation and opposition, what types of employer actions can be challenged as retaliation, and the legal standards for determining whether the employer's action was caused by retaliation in a given case.

Section III addresses the additional ADA prohibition of "interference" with the exercise of rights under the ADA. [13] The interference provision goes beyond the retaliation prohibition to make it also unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or otherwise interfere with an individual's exercise of any right under the ADA, or with an individual who is assisting another to exercise ADA rights.

Section IV addresses remedies, and Section V addresses promising practices for preventing retaliation or interference.

The breadth of these anti-retaliation protections does not mean that employees can immunize themselves from consequences for poor performance or improper behavior by raising an internal EEO allegation or filing a discrimination claim with an enforcement agency. Employers remain free to discipline or terminate employees for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons, notwithstanding any prior protected activity. [14] Whether an adverse action was taken because of the employee's protected activity depends on the facts. If a manager recommends an adverse action in the wake of an employee's filing of an EEOC charge or other protected activity, the employer may reduce the chance of potential retaliation by independently evaluating whether the adverse action is appropriate.

Short companion publications on retaliation are available on the EEOC's website:


Office of the Whistleblower

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expanded the protections for whistleblowers and broadened the prohibitions against retaliation. Following the passage of Dodd-Frank, the SEC implemented rules that enabled the SEC to take legal action against employers who have retaliated against whistleblowers. This generally means that employers may not discharge, demote, suspend, harass, or in any way discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment who has reported conduct to the Commission that the employee reasonably believed violated the federal securities laws.

Recent amendments to the whistleblower program’s rules also require individuals to report information about possible securities laws violations to the Commission “in writing” before experiencing retaliation to qualify for the retaliation protection under Section 21F.

Dodd-Frank also created a private right of action that gives whistleblowers the right to file a retaliation complaint in federal court. This means that if you are a whistleblower who has reported a possible securities law violation to the Commission in writing and believe you have been retaliated against because of your report, you may be able to sue your employer in federal court and seek double back pay (with interest), reinstatement, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and reimbursement for certain costs in connection with the litigation.

You can find more information about the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections, including the time period by which a whistleblower must file a private action in federal court, in Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Protections Against Actions Taken to Impede Reporting

In addition to protecting whistleblowers who have reported possible securities law violations from retaliation, Commission Rule 21F-17(a) prohibits any person from taking any action to prevent you from contacting the SEC directly to report a possible securities law violation. The Rule states “[n]o person may take action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement…with respect to such communications.”

Unlike the anti-retaliation protections, the protections against actions taken to impede reporting possible securities law violations are not limited to the employee-employer context. Only the SEC, however, may file an enforcement action for a violation of Rule 21F-17(a).

Please let us know by submitting a tip if you believe that someone has taken any action to prevent you from communicating with the SEC concerning a possible securities law violation.

Frequently Asked Questions

The answers to these frequently asked questions represent the views of the staff of the Office of the Whistleblower. They are not rules, regulations or statements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved them. These FAQs provide short general summaries of certain key features of the SEC Whistleblower Program and do not purport to be a complete or comprehensive discussion of all of its provisions. For detailed information about the program, including eligibility requirements and certain limitations that apply, please see Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Amended Rules implementing the program.

  1. What rights do I have if my employer fires me or retaliates against me for submitting information to the SEC?

You may bring an action in federal court within a certain time period if your employer violates the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank. If you are successful in court, you may be entitled to reinstatement, double back pay, litigation costs, expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees.

The anti-retaliation protections generally apply to employees who report information regarding possible violations of the federal securities laws. Among other things, these protections provide that an employer may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any way discriminate against a whistleblower in the terms or conditions of employment for:

  • Providing information to the SEC under the whistleblower program, or
  • Initiating, testifying in, or assisting the SEC in any investigation or proceeding

In addition, the SEC may also bring an enforcement action against a company that violates the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank.

You may also be able to file a retaliation complaint in federal court under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). You can find information about your rights and protections under SOX on the Department of Labor’s whistleblower website.

  1. I’m considering reporting internally to my company. Will I still be eligible for the anti-retaliation protections under Dodd-Frank?

With the passage of Dodd-Frank, Congress amended the Exchange Act to add Section 21F, which established a series of new incentives and protections for individuals to report possible violations of the federal securities laws, including enhanced employment retaliation protections.

On February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers stating that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions only extend to those persons who provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC. In September 2020, the Commission adopted amendments to the rule governing the whistleblower program that included a new definition of “whistleblower” to conform to the Supreme Court’s holding in Digital Realty. For purposes of retaliation protection, an individual is required to have reported information about possible securities laws violations to the Commission “in writing” before experiencing the retaliation. To understand how this may affect you, we encourage you to consult with an attorney.

If you choose to report a possible securities law violation internally to your company, you also can report that information directly to the SEC either before or at the same time as reporting internally. If you have already reported to the company, you can still report to the Commission now.

Regardless of whether the anti-retaliation protections extend to you, you may remain eligible for an award under our whistleblower award program. We encourage you to provide information about potential securities law violations to the SEC by submitting a tip. To be eligible for an award, you must a Form TCR within 30 days of submitting your information or within 30 days of learning of the TCR filing requirement. If you are represented by counsel, you are on constructive notice of the TCR filing requirement.

  1. What if I am asked to sign an agreement that prevents me from reporting my concerns directly to the SEC?

Such an agreement may violate the federal securities laws. Rule 21F-17(a) provides that “[n]o person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing or threatening to enforce a confidentiality agreement…with respect to such communications.”

If you have been asked to sign such an agreement, or have already signed such an agreement, and want to understand how the rules may apply to you, we encourage you to consult with an attorney. You may also send us a copy of your agreement, if you so choose, by submitting it as a tip either through our online portal or by mail or fax.

Dodd-Frank does not specifically state whether, or to what extent, the anti-retaliation protections apply to individuals or conduct outside of the United States. To understand if the anti-retaliation protections may apply to you, we encourage you to consult with an attorney. We encourage you to submit a tip to the SEC if you believe you have been retaliated against for reporting potential securities law violations even if the retaliation occurred outside of the United States.

Regardless of whether the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protections extend to you, you may remain eligible for an award under our whistleblower award program. You do not need to reside or work in the United States to be eligible for an award under our whistleblower award program.

SEC Enforcement Actions

The SEC has brought a number of actions based on both retaliatory conduct, as well as actions taken to impede reporting.

Enforcement Actions Based on Retaliatory Conduct

Enforcement Actions Based on Actions Taken to Impede Reporting


Le Paradis, 1940: 97 dead

May 27, 1940 saw soldiers of the 3rd SS Division Totenkopf machine gun 97 unarmed British Tommies during the final hours of the Battle of France. The killings took place at Le Paradis, 60 km inland from Dunkirk. A 29-year-old Nazi captain by the name of Fritz Knöchlein ordered the captives, many of whom were wounded, to line up in front of a large barn. The men were mowed down by two MG-34 crews. Moments later, the perpetrators waded through the bodies dispatching any survivors with their bayonets. After the war, Knöchlein was arrested, tried and condemned by the Allies. Despite his repeated pleas for clemency, he went to the gallows in early 1949.


Facts About Retaliation

Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. As EEOC works to address this issue, you can help.

Learn more about what constitutes retaliation, why it happens, and how to prevent it. Written by EEOC staff, this article ran in the summer 2015 issue of The Federal Manager.

The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment. Asserting these EEO rights is called "protected activity," and it can take many forms. For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

  • filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
  • communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment
  • answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment
  • refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
  • resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others
  • requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice
  • asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages.

Participating in a complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she did not use legal terminology to describe it.

Engaging in EEO activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers are free to discipline or terminate workers if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such consequences. However, an employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination.

For example, depending on the facts, it could be retaliation if an employer acts because of the employee's EEO activity to:


Retaliation II - History

As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during the war, President Eisenhower had a well-earned reputation for staff work and organization. He was determined to make the Department of State a part of the NSC’s structured system of integrated policy review, and the NSC enjoyed a renaissance during his Administration. Discussion papers were prepared by the NSC’s own Planning Board—not the Department of State, and the Planning Board ironed out interdepartmental differences before a policy paper went to the NSC. The full Council, with Eisenhower almost always in attendance, debated the policy options and made decisions, which were then sent as recommendations to the President in the form of NSC actions. Another subcommittee, the Operations Coordinating Board, made sure that the bureaucracy carried out the recommendations approved by the President.

Dulles drew a sharp line between the policy review process and day-to-day operations, which he felt were the exclusive province of the Department of State. Dulles also believed that some issues, such as covert operations, were too sensitive to be discussed by the full NSC. Because of his close ties to the President and his even closer relationship with his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, John Foster Dulles was second in importance only to the President at any NSC meeting. President Eisenhower often dominated the discussions, but Dulles remained his most influential foreign policy adviser.

Dulles was a staunch anti-communist. For this Secretary of State there was no grey area—nations were either part of the “Free World” or part of the Soviet bloc he had little time for neutralism or non-alignment. Secretary Dulles also had a tendency to speak dramatically. In a 1954 speech, he said that the United States would meet Soviet provocations not necessarily where they occurred but where the United States chose, based on its “deterrent of massive retaliatory power.” In a 1956 Life magazine interview, Dulles described how he had passed the word to the Chinese and the North Koreans that unless the communist powers signed the Korean armistice, the United States would unleash its atomic arsenal. Dulles claimed that by moving to the brink of atomic war, he ended the Korean War and avoided a larger conflict. From that point on, Dulles was associated with the concepts of “massive retaliation” and “brinksmanship,” a supposedly reckless combination of atomic saber rattling and eyeball-to-eyeball standoffs. In reality, the so-called atomic threat to China was less definitive than Dulles had claimed, and the Eisenhower Administration policy of “massive retaliation” was far more cautiously based on mutual atomic deterrence.

During the Eisenhower years, the United States consolidated the policy of containment, although some critics have argued that the administration extended it too far. The United States ratified a series of bilateral and multilateral treaties designed to encircle the Soviet Union and its allies, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Among these arrangements were the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and bilateral defense or security treaties with Japan, South Korea , the Republic of China , and the Philippines . Secretary Dulles was the most prominent advocate of global containment and he traveled the world tirelessly to ensure its success. In 1954, the United States took a strong stand in favor of the Chinese Nationalists when the PRC bombarded Taiwan’s island strongholds. In 1955, assistance began to flow to the new nation of South Vietnam, created after the withdrawal of France from Indochina. In 1958, the United States again rattled the saber to protect the Chinese Nationalists’ offshore islands.


Contents

Duke leads the G.I. Joe Team to North Korea to find a North Korean defector. Later, Zartan, impersonating the President of the United States, frames G.I. Joe for stealing nuclear warheads from Pakistan after the death of its President during a civil war, and subsequently eliminates G.I. Joe, which kills Duke and the other Joes, using a military air strike. Heavy machine gunner Roadblock, rookie sniper Flint, and counterintelligence officer Lady Jaye survive the attack by diving into a well, and they return to the United States and find the original G.I. Joe, General Joseph Colton, who provides them with weapons.

Meanwhile, Storm Shadow, who survived the Arctic base's destruction, [N 1] and demolitions expert Firefly rescue Cobra Commander from an underground maximum-security prison in Germany, leaving Destro behind. Storm Shadow retreats to a temple in the Himalayas to recover after he was injured. The Blind Master, leader of the Arashikage Clan, sends Snake Eyes and his apprentice Jinx, to capture Storm Shadow, allowing him to answer the murder of his uncle, the Hard Master.

After Zartan announces that Cobra will become the premier U.S. special forces team, replacing G.I. Joe, Lady Jaye deduces that someone is impersonating the President and steals a sample of the President's DNA and confirms that he is Zartan. They escape after a confrontation with Firefly and Zandar, the head of the U.S. Secret Service's Presidential Detail and a member of Cobra. Colton leads the Joes to infiltrate a fundraising event where the President attends it.

Snake Eyes and Jinx locate and capture Storm Shadow after a battle with some ninjas loyal to Storm Shadow and take him back to Japan, where Storm Shadow proclaims that he did not kill the Hard Master and proves it by fighting Snake Eyes with the weapon that killed the Hard Master, which breaks. Knowing that Arashikage steel does not break, the Blind Master deduces that Zartan was the one that murdered the Hard Master and framed Storm Shadow for it, who joined Cobra to bring it down from the inside. With him cleared of murder, Storm Shadow then accompanies Snake Eyes and Jinx as they join the Joes' efforts to stop Cobra and avenge the Hard Master.

Zartan invites the world leaders to a summit at historic Fort Sumter, where he blackmails them into disabling their nuclear arsenals, and reveals that he has created Project Zeus: seven orbital kinetic bombardment weapons of mass destruction at his command, destroys Central London to prove his superiority, and threatens to destroy other capitals if the countries do not submit to Cobra. Storm Shadow betrays Cobra Commander and starts a fight, revealing Cobra's deception to the world leaders. Colton kills Zandar and rescues the real President with Lady Jaye, while Storm Shadow kills Zartan. While Snake Eyes, Jinx, and Flint fight Cobra's soldiers, Cobra Commander activates the remaining six weapons and instructs Firefly to protect the launch device, and escapes onto the helicopter. Roadblock and Firefly fight, but Roadblock is able to deactivate and destroy the orbital weapons, as well as kill Firefly. Storm Shadow leaves after avenging his uncle.

At the White House ceremony, the real President addresses the nation and commemorates the Joes, who were awarded by Colton: Roadblock, Jinx, Flint, Snake Eyes, and Lady Jaye. Colton presents Roadblock with an M1911 pistol that belonged to General George S. Patton to use it to find Cobra Commander. Roadblock proudly raises the weapon and fires a single shot in honor of his fallen comrades, vowing to avenge them.

    as Marvin F. Hinton / Roadblock:
    An Heavy machine gunner and second in command turned team Captain of the G.I. Joe. as General Joseph Colton:
    A retired General and the founder and leader G.I. Joe. as Conrad S. Hauser / Duke:
    The G.I. Joe's team Captain. as Zartan / President of the United States:
    A disguise expert of Cobra who kidnap and replaces the President in the last film. as Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow:
    A member of Cobra and Snake Eyes's rival both were close members of the Arashikage ninja clan. He survived his encounter with Snake Eyes in the last film.
    • Nathan Takashige as young Storm Shadow
      as young Snake Eyes
      (uncredited) as the voice of Cobra Commander [7]

    Development Edit

    After the financially successful release of The Rise of Cobra, Rob Moore, the studio vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, stated in 2009 that a sequel would be developed. In January 2011, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, the writers of Zombieland, were hired to write the script for the sequel. [8] [9] The movie was originally thought to be titled G.I. Joe: Cobra Strikes, [10] which was later denied by Reese. [11] Stephen Sommers was originally going to return as director of the sequel, but Paramount Pictures announced in February 2011 that Jon Chu would direct the sequel. [12] [13] In July 2011, the sequel's name was revealed to be G.I. Joe: Retaliation. [14] [15] Chu would later declare that Paramount wanted a reboot that also served as a sequel to The Rise of Cobra since "a lot of people saw the first movie so we don't want to alienate that and redo the whole thing." [16]

    Casting Edit

    In January 2011, it was confirmed that Byung-hun Lee would reprise his role as Storm Shadow in the sequel. [17] [18] Channing Tatum and Ray Park also returned, as Duke and Snake Eyes, respectively. Rachel Nichols, the actress who played Scarlett in the first film, stated that most cast members would not be returning, except for the three aforementioned actors. [19] In March 2011, Sienna Miller stated that she would not be returning for a sequel. [20] Joseph Gordon-Levitt also confirmed that he would not be returning as Cobra Commander in the sequel because he was too busy with The Dark Knight Rises. [21]

    In June 2011, Dwayne Johnson was cast as Roadblock, [22] D. J. Cotrona and RZA were cast as Flint and Blind Master, respectively, [23] while Élodie Yung was in talks for the role of Jinx. [24] In July 2011, Adrianne Palicki was confirmed for the lead female role of Lady Jaye, [25] [26] and Ray Stevenson was confirmed to portray the villain Firefly. [27] [28] Arnold Vosloo also confirmed that he would reprise his role of Zartan, [29] although in the final film Vosloo appears only in a couple of non-dialogue scenes, with Jonathan Pryce playing Zartan in most scenes. Joseph Mazzello was confirmed to play Mouse. [30] In August 2011, Walton Goggins was added as Warden Nigel James, [31] and it was confirmed that Bruce Willis was cast to star in the film as the original G.I. Joe. [32] The character of Joe Colton was a replacement for fan-favorite Joe character Sgt. Slaughter. Sgt. Slaughter stated that he "was originally supposed to be the part of Bruce Willis' [as] Sgt. Slaughter but because we had a conflict in toy companies, Hasbro and Mattel, I wasn't able to do it. It's one of those things, Rock (Dwayne Johnson) doesn't have a contract so he can do what he wants to do and he's been very successful". [33]

    In September, a casting call sheet leaked to the Internet revealed that Cobra Commander would appear in the sequel, though it was unknown who would play the character. [34] Chu said that fans would get a glimpse of Destro in the film, but Christopher Eccleston would not reprise his role in the sequel. [35] On May 1, 2012, it was confirmed by Jon Chu that G.I. Joe: Retaliation ' s Cobra Commander is Rex Lewis, the same character that Joseph Gordon-Levitt played in The Rise of Cobra. [36]

    Filming Edit

    Principal photography began in August 2011 in Louisiana. [14] [37] On November 22, 2011, a crew member died in an accident at a New Orleans warehouse that was serving as a soundstage for the production. The incident happened while crew members were changing out a set. [38] The battle on the Himalayas was shot in the south vertical assembly building at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility, that had been fitted with a green screen wall at a very steep angle with a lot of rigging above to swing the stunt people through. [39]

    Fort Pike in Louisiana stands in for Fort Sumter in South Carolina as the site of the climactic summit meeting of the leaders of nuclear-armed countries.

    Visual effects Edit

    Retaliation had 700 visual effects shots, [40] which were mostly handled by three effects companies. [39] Visual effects supervisor Zachary Kinnery declared that while the visuals aimed for the "big and bold" typical of the franchise, Retaliation would be the first to attempt "a bit more of that gritty realism." [41] The major part of the effects was given to Digital Domain, which for 227 effects created digital vehicles and aircraft that had to "look fantastic but which are also plausible", given they had to match practical models, the Zeus satellite and a sequence where Zartan shows his nanomite-related disguise to the president—done with the same head replacement software developed for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Tron: Legacy. Industrial Light & Magic made the London destruction, a digital White House, and the mountain sword fight, which had computer-generated backgrounds and digital augmentation of the stunt people's performance. Method Studios was responsible for the desert attack, Firefly's explosive bugs, and the malfunction on the underground prison. [39] [40] [42] Saints LA handled minor effects such as compositing and news graphics. [43]

    Music Edit

    The film's score was composed by Henry Jackman. A soundtrack of the score was released in April 2013. [44]

    Theatrical Edit

    Previously slated for release on August 10, 2012 [10] and June 29, 2012, [45] Paramount announced in May 2012 that they were delaying the film's release until March 29, 2013 (but was later moved up to March 28, 2013), in order to convert the movie to 3D and boost interest in international markets. [46] [47]

    The delay "gobsmacked" the film industry due to Paramount's implementation of a substantial advertising campaign beginning with a Super Bowl commercial, with the "warehouses full of" toys were waiting for the film's launch, and because it was one of only three Paramount-produced films scheduled for Summer 2012 (along with The Dictator and Katy Perry: Part of Me). The studio also wanted to avoid competing with Tatum's Magic Mike, also scheduled for June 29. [48]

    Ban in Pakistan Edit

    The film was banned by the Central Board of Film Censors of Pakistan due to initial scenes at the beginning of the movie which depict the country negatively, according to film censor board officials. A Karachi-based cinema posted on its Facebook page that the film would not be screened due to restrictions by the censor board. The censorship was due to the film's depiction of Pakistan as an unstable state and the fictional portrayal of a "foreign invasion of Pakistan's nuclear installations", which caught the ire of film censor authorities. Consequently, restrictions were imposed on screening the movie countrywide. [49] [50] [51] [52] According to an official at the censor board, the film portrayed Pakistan negatively not only on the issue of the War on Terror but also on the international standing of the country: "There is a scene which shows the assassination of the Pakistani president and the imposition of martial law, which is not a fair representation of the country." [53] Another cinema official explained "There were obviously several objectionable things which would never have passed the censors, but these things are also relevant to the content of the film." [53]

    Marketing Edit

    A toyline for the film was confirmed by Hasbro in February 2012. [54] Despite the movie's release being moved from June 2012 to March 2013, the initial assortments of figures, vehicles, and role-play items were shipped to retailers, and appeared on store shelves in May 2012. A Variety article was published stating that the already released figures had been pulled from the shelves and recalled by Hasbro, [55] although the company's official statement indicated that existing product would be sold through. New product shipments were halted by Hasbro, but existing Retaliation figures were available in Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us as late as December 2012. [56] The toyline was re-released in the United States in February 2013. [57] A four-part limited series comic book titled G.I. Joe: Retaliation Movie Prequel was published by IDW Publishing from February 2012 to April 2012. Written by John Barber, it acts as a prequel to the movie.

    Home media Edit

    G.I. Joe: Retaliation was released on DVD, Blu-ray, and Blu-ray 3D on July 30, 2013. [58] A Blu-ray "Extended Action Cut" added 12 minutes of footage and uncensored violence was also available, with the United States version being a Best Buy exclusive. [59]

    The film topped No. 1 on both the Blu-ray and DVD sales charts with at least 54% of both Blu-ray and DVD units sold. [60] The film also topped weekend rentals as well. [61]

    Box office Edit

    G.I. Joe: Retaliation grossed $122.5 million in North America and $253.2 million internationally for a worldwide total of $375.7 million, [5] against a budget of $130–$155 million. [3] [6]

    In North America, the film grossed $10.5 million on its opening day, debuting at the top of the box office. [62] The film retained the No. 1 spot over the three-day weekend and grossed $40.5 million however, the film's opening weekend fell 14.2% against The Rise of Cobra ' s $54.7 million debut. [63]

    Critical response Edit

    The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 29% based on 167 reviews, with an average rating of 4.5/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Though arguably superior to its predecessor, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is overwhelmed by its nonstop action and too nonsensical and vapid to leave a lasting impression." [64] At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average rating to reviews, the film has an average score of 41 out of 100, based on 31 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". [65] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale. [66]

    Alan Scherstuhl of The Village Voice wrote in a positive review that "this [movie] pushes right past competent into mostly legitimately enjoyable" but added that "the movie is still dumb as catbutt. It's an honest and accomplished dumbness, however, where the stupidest stuff seems to be there because the movie would be less fun without it." [67] The Hollywood Reporter ' s Todd McCarthy was critical about the film's use of 3D and accurate reflection of the franchise's comic book and cartoon origins, but predicted it would still earn better than its predecessor, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. [68] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a grade of "B-", calling it "well-executed technocratic action fluff" and commented: "In its dehumanized and trivial way, it's a triumph of razor-sharp, hyper-violent style over formulaic substance . Hollywood has now evolved to the point that it can deliver these kinds of thrills with maximum brute force and keep the impact so light that the result can still be regarded as a 'harmless' diversion for 14-year-olds." [69] Glen Heath Jr. of Slant Magazine gave it two out of four stars, criticizing the film's "cut-happy style" and plot, but lauding the action sequences and Chu's direction as "poetry in high-speed motion." [70]

    In a negative review, Betsey Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times panned the "overwhelmingly complicated, globe-hopping, enemies within, enemies without story line" and 3D but noted that "the humor, when it works, offers 'Retaliation' some redemption." She ended with: "It's convoluted. Frankly no one should have to think that hard to keep up with the Joes." [71] Another negative review came from Variety magazine's Justin Chang, who ridiculed the movie's large-scale destruction of foreign cities, writing: "Audiences who thrilled to the sight of Paris under biochemical attack in Cobra will be pleased to watch London endure an even more horrific fate here, although the sequence is tossed off in quick, almost ho-hum fashion, with no time to dwell on anything so exquisitely crass as the spectacle of the Eiffel Tower collapsing." He summarized the movie as "a more straight-faced brand of idiocy than its cheerfully dumb 2009 predecessor." [72]


    The Expendables Part II: Retaliation

    The Expendables Part II: Retliation is the first sequel to the remake of The Expendables. It was followed by The Expendables III: War Zone.

    Barney Ross, the leader of the mercenary team known as the Expendables, is approached by CIA agent Mr Church who proposes a new mission for Ross to go with the Expendables to Albania and retrieve a briefcase from a crashed airplane. Ross declines, but Church threatens to turn Ross over to the CIA if he does not comply. Reluctantly, Ross assembles the group and they leave for Albania.

    They are met by technical expert Maggie Chan, who was sent by Church to crack the safe the briefcase is held in. They manage to locate the plane and retrieve the case, while Ross' old friend Tool keeps a look out. Returning from the crash site, the group finds themself surrounded by an opposing mercenary group. These are revealed to be the Indestructibles, led by Claude Vilain. With Tool as a hostage, Vilain forces them to hand over the briefcase. The team comply and Vilain departs in a helicopter, but before he goes, he throws a knife into Tool's back, killing him. After burying Tool, the Expendables decide to follow Vilain and get revenge.

    Maggie reveals that the case contained a computer which held the secret location of five tons of weapons grade plutonium. The plutonium was found in a mine which was abandoned by the Soviet Union following the end of the Cold War. Ross becomes determined to kill both Vilain and Church in retaliation, but Maggie reveals that Church has come under great pressure from fellow agent Max Drummer, and had no choice but to call Ross in.

    The Expendables are able to track the computer's weak signal and wind up at a deserted military base, where they sleep. The following morning, they are ambushed by armed militia and a firefight ensues. The group eventually become pinned down until they are rescued by Booker, a former soldier and Ross' old friend. Upon investigating the bodies of their attackers, Ross realises that they aren't members of the Indestructibles, and concludes that they were sent by Church to kill the rest of the Expendables. Booker accompanies the group to a nearby village, where there lives only women and children. It is revealed that the Indestructibles kidnapped all of the men in the village and forced them to work as slaves in the mine. Meanwhile, Vilain and his right hand man Hector have found the plutonium and begun collecting it.

    A group of Indestructibles arrive in the village to collect more villagers, but are ambushed by the Expendables and killed after a firefight. They then locate the mine and infiltrate it. However, Vilain has already retrieved all of the plutonium and he blows the mine before brutally murdering the remaining miners with a machine gun. The Expendables survive, but are trapped in the mine. They are rescued by Trench Mauser, another mercenary and Ross' friendly rival, who takes them to Church. Ross is ready to kill Church, until he reveals that he didn't send the men after them. He also offers to help the Expendables in getting revenge for Tool.

    Villain and the Indestructibles storm into an airport, where they are going to sell the plutonium to a mysterious benefactor. The Expendables intercept them and are shocked to find that the buyer is none other than rogue agent Max Drummer. A large firefight erupts between the Expendables and their allies and the Indestructibles. Lee Christmas, the team's knife expert, engages Hector in a one on one fight and kills him by punching his head into the rotory blades of a helicopter. Church and Mauser fight side by side, until Church mysteriously runs off. Mauser is then shot in the knee by Drummer, who prepares to execute him. Suddenly, Church crashes in driving a stolen jeep and runs Drummer down. Mauser climbs into the jeep and they tear through the Indestructible forces.

    Ross pursues Vilain, who is trying to escape, and engages him in a brutal hand to hand fight. The battle is bitter and relentless, leaving both men badly beaten and bloodied. Just when it appears that Vilain has gained the upper hand, Maggie appears and tosses Ross a grenade belt, which he then wraps around Vilain's neck before pulling all of the pins out. Vilain dies when the grenades explode. 

    In the aftermath, the Expendables prepare to return home while Mauser and Booker depart from the team. Church reveals that he has now abandonned his job at the CIA and become a mercenary too. Ross and Maggie share a brief but passionate kiss before she also leaves, the Expendables get into their plane and fly home. On the way, the team propose a final toast to Tool.


    Retaliation in the Fourth Circuit: Recent Decision Creates New Challenges for Employers

    In May 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) issued an opinion with negative consequences for employers facing claims of retaliation. In Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, No. 14-1073 (May 21, 2015), retaliation plaintiffs achieved a victory when the Fourth Circuit rejected the notion that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar was intended to create a &ldquoheightened causation standard&rdquo for retaliation claims brought under the burden-shifting McDonnell Douglas framework. The decision underscores the scrutiny that employers face in the Fourth Circuit, where the rise of employee-friendly standards continues to present a stark departure from conservative precedent.

    Shortly after Iris Foster was hired by the defendant as a campus police officer, she reported that her co-worker, Rudolph Jones, had sexually harassed her. A month after the harassment began, Foster notified her superiors about Jones&rsquos conduct. The defendant&rsquos Director of Human Resources conducted an investigation and concluded that Jones had acted inappropriately. Foster alleged that she was retaliated against for complaining about Jones. Foster complained repeatedly to her superiors about the perceived incidents of retaliation to no avail.

    Foster&rsquos employment was terminated shortly after her last complaint. The defendant offered several justifications for its decision, including that Foster had used almost all of her personal and sick leave for the year in a relatively short time that she was inflexible when asked to come in early or stay past the end of her shift and that she was not a team player. During a deposition, one of Foster&rsquos supervisors offered an additional reason for discharging Foster&mdashthat she was an &ldquounacceptable fit&rdquo for the position of police officer because she complained too often about perceived retaliation.

    Foster filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging retaliatory termination, among other claims. Retaliation plaintiffs can prove retaliation either through direct and indirect evidence (historically referred to as the &ldquomixed motive&rdquo analysis, which is rarely invoked by plaintiffs) or through the burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973) (often referred to as the &ldquopretext&rdquo analysis, which is more commonly used by plaintiffs). Foster proceeded under the &ldquopretext&rdquo framework, which required her to first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing: (i) that she engaged in protected activity (i.e., that she complained of unlawful sexual harassment) (ii) that her employer took adverse action against her and (iii) that a causal relationship existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Under this analysis, the burden would then shift to the defendant to show that it discharged Foster for a legitimate non-retaliatory reason. If the defendant made that showing, the burden would then shift back to Foster to demonstrate that the purported reason for her termination was not true, but was merely a pretext for discrimination.

    The district court initially denied the defendant&rsquos motion for summary judgment with respect to Foster&rsquos retaliation claim. However, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court&rsquos intervening decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2521 (2013), which held that &ldquoTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.&rdquo In other words, after Nassar, it was widely viewed that a successful retaliation plaintiff must prove that retaliatory animus was the only cause of the challenged adverse employment action, regardless of whether a plaintiff pursued relief under the &ldquomixed motive&rdquo analysis or through the &ldquopretext&rdquo analysis.

    The district court in Foster granted the defendant&rsquos motion for reconsideration and dismissed Foster&rsquos retaliation claim on the grounds that, under the new Nassar standard, Foster could no longer satisfy the causation element of a prima facie case of retaliation under the &ldquopretext&rdquo analysis&mdashi.e., she could not show that her complaints of unlawful conduct were the but-for cause of her termination.

    The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court&rsquos decision with regard to Foster&rsquos retaliation claim. In essence, the court held that Nassar&mdashwhich was decided under the &ldquomixed motive&rdquo framework&mdashdid not expressly alter the causation standard for claims brought under the &ldquopretext&rdquo analysis. Instead, the court determined that the burden of establishing causation at the prima facie stage under the &ldquopretext&rdquo framework is &ldquoless onerous&rdquo than the strict &ldquobut-for&rdquo standard of causation announced by Nassar.

    Prior to Nassar, a retaliation plaintiff pursuing relief under the &ldquomixed motive&rdquo analysis only needed to show&mdashaccording to a 2004 Fourth Circuit case&mdashthat his or her employer was &ldquomotivated to take the adverse employment action by both permissible and forbidden reasons.&rdquo According to the Fourth Circuit, Nassar &ldquosignificantly altered the causation standard for [retaliation] claims&rdquo brought under the &ldquomixed motive&rdquo framework, but had no effect on claims, such as Foster&rsquos, brought under the &ldquopretext&rdquo framework.. The court noted a split in authority among circuit courts on this issue, but chose to follow the prevailing view that Nassar did not alter the elements of a prima facie case of retaliation.

    Indeed, the Fourth Circuit observed that the &ldquopretext&rdquo framework already required plaintiffs to prove that retaliation was the &ldquoactual reason&rdquo for the challenged employment action. Accordingly, the court concluded that &ldquothe McDonnell Douglas [&lsquopretext&rsquo] framework has long demanded proof at the pretext stage that retaliation was a but-for cause of a challenged adverse employment action,&rdquo therefore, &ldquoNassar does not alter the legal standard for adjudicating a McDonnell Douglas retaliation claim.&rdquo

    Key Takeaways

    The Fourth Circuit&rsquos decisions in Boyer-Liberto and Foster will likely reduce the prospect of obtaining summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment or retaliation, thereby increasing the value of these claims in the eyes of prospective plaintiffs and their attorneys. Isolated instances of harassment now present a greater threat of liability to employers. Accordingly, both cases underscore the importance of taking complaints of harassment seriously and avoiding hasty decisions that could be viewed as retaliatory.

    List of site sources >>>


    Watch the video: Did the US just take a step closer to war with China? Full Show (January 2022).