Retaliation |
|
Federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee because that employee opposed conduct he or she reasonably believed constituted unlawful discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding.
Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an "adverse action" against an employee because he or she engaged in a "protected activity." Protected activity can take the form of complaining to one's supervisor or to a Human Resources representative, filing a charge or complaint of discrimination, participating in an EEO investigation, sitting for a deposition in a discrimination case, or otherwise opposing discrimination or participating in the discrimination complaint process. Adverse action by an employer may take the form of termination, demotion, denial of a promotion, refusal to hire, transfer, assignment to undesirable job duties, or other unjustified retaliatory conduct. Indeed, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in June of 2006, called Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), expanding the rights of workers to be free from retaliatory action, including non-employment related actions.
If the employee who has been retaliated against is a federal government employee or has reported financial or accounting improprieties, specific anti-retaliation statutes such as the Whistleblower Protection Act or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act may also apply.
Katz, Marshall & Banks attorneys are nationally recognized for their expertise in handling these types of claims, and regularly teach, provide commentary, and write about these issues.
