Showing 52 posts in Retaliation.

Title VII Provides Retaliation Claim to son Based upon Father’s Protected Activity

June 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Two employees, a father and son, sued their employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended (Title VII), which makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for engaging in protected Title VII activity. Both the father and the son alleged that they had been subjected to adverse employment actions because of the father’s prior complaints of discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the son’s claim, relying on earlier federal decision that had interpreted Title VII as requiring a plaintiff to allege retaliation “because of his own protected activity.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, recognizing that the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected that interpretation of Title VII just months later in the case of Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011), where the high court found that a husband was entitled to bring a Title VII claim based on retaliation that he suffered because of protected Title VII activity by his wife. Relying on the Supreme Court’s holding in Thompson that Title VII permits an employee to bring a claim based on retaliation suffered because of protected activity by a “close family member” who is also a co-worker, the Fifth Circuit remanded the son’s claim for reconsideration. Employers should remember that in light of Thompson, any adverse actions taken against an employee who has complained of discrimination or against any of that employee’s family members could be grounds for a Title VII retaliation claim.

Tenth Circuit Finds no Pretext in the Termination of an Employee who was the Subject of 23 Reported Complaints

June 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

An African-American male worked as a technician for 10 years. During that time, he was the subject of 23 reported complaints from co-workers and supervisors, including five complaints of sexual harassment. The employer performed an investigation based on the complaints, which resulted in the employee’s termination. The investigation revealed that the employee had received many final warnings and should have been terminated much earlier. After being fired, the employee sued, alleging that the employer discriminated against him based on his race and retaliated against him for complaining about the lack of African-Americans in management. The employee argued that his long disciplinary history was proof that his inappropriate behavior could not have been the motivation for his termination and must have been pretext for discriminatory and retaliatory motives. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected the employee’s claims and held that the employer’s discipline of the employee, including his termination, was coherent, consistent and lawful. Employers should be sure to have a coherent, progressive disciplinary policy that is applied consistently to all employees. Such a policy will serve as a valuable defense should claims of discrimination or retaliation arise after an employee has been disciplined.

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives