Home > Tags > Retaliation

Retaliation

This page was specificaly designed for you to help you find information related to
"Retaliation" on our site.

The following pages should help you:

Retaliation, check out our practice area.
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.
Discrimination, our practice area related to retaliation.
Federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws prohibit workplace discrimination based on an employee's race, sex, religion, national origin, pregnancy, age, or disability. Employees working in the District of Columbia and other localities are also protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, family responsibilities, personal appearance, matriculation, or political affiliation. These laws protect employees from discrimination with respect to all terms and conditions of their employment, including hiring, compensation, promotion, treatment on the job, and termination. These laws also bar employers from making employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or likely performance of individuals because of their sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or disability.
David Marshall, Partner
David Marshall concentrates his practice on the representation of whistleblowers in the nuclear, financial and medical industries, and in the prosecution of consumer class actions. In 2006 and 2007, Mr. Marshall successfully represented ten U.S. Capitol tunnel workers in a whistleblower retaliation complaint against the Architect of the Capitol Tunnel Workers v. Architect of the Capitol, which is an agency of the U.S. Congress.
Ari M. Wilkenfeld, Partner
Ari Wilkenfeld is a seasoned employment law litigator, who has experience as both a management-side labor lawyer, and, for the past six years, as a plaintiffs'-side employment attorney. He concentrates his practice on employment discrimination, employment contract and non-compete issues.
Complaint: Michael Smith v. Southern Nuclear
Complainant Michael Smith is a Senior Engineer at respondent Southern Company's Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, operated by Respondent Southern Nuclear Company. Mr. Smith seeks to recover compensatory damages and equitable relief arising from the respondents' harassment and adverse employment actions taken against Mr. Smith in retaliation for his reporting or nuclear safety issues at the Farley plant, in violation of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851.
Edgar A. Domenech: OSC Report of Possible Prohibited Personnel Practices
Each one of these elements is satisfied in this case. Mr. Domenech clearly engaged in protected activity by filing a complaint with the OSC and OIG regarding Mr. Truscott's misuse of public funds and misconduct. He also engaged in protected activity by cooperating with the OIG's investigation and disclosing his knowledge of Mr. Truscott's misuse of funds and government resources. This represents a protected disclosure not only under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), but also under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9), which prohibits retaliation against federal employees for "cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency."
Victories for Workers
In the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005-06 term, which saw two new conservative justices, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., assume the bench and change the court's ideological balance, few could have predicted the number of significant victories for workers. Issuing decisions notable for their lack of dissent, as well as their largely pro-employee results, the court rejected the heightened standards for retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 favored by employers and several courts of appeals; provided a more expansive view of certain evidentiary and jurisdictional issues under Title VII; and enlarged the scope of compensable work for wage and hour employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Complaint For Declaratory, Injunctive, And Monetary Relief And Jury Demand (Sauer and Martino v. ArmorGroup North America and Armor Group International)
This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for injuries Plaintiffs James Sauer and Peter Martino sustained as a result of their unlawful terminations, in retaliation for their whistleblowing about the fraudulent representations made by Defendants ArmorGroup North America and ArmorGroup International; Defendant Karl Semancik, former President of AGNA; Defendant Michael O'Connell, former Director of Operations of AGNA; and Defendant Caroline Ruart, former Director of Human Resources of AGI (collectively Defendants) to the United States Department of State. Defendants made these fraudulent misrepresentations regarding AGNA's experience, staffing capabilities, equipment and facilities in its attempt to secure and maintain a $187 million government contract to provide a guard force to protect the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Plaintiffs bring their claims for retaliatory and wrongful discharge under the anti-retaliation provision of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), and the common law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Only Two Major Rulings
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term had few employment cases, although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement this term, once again played a crucial role in important employment and civil rights matters decided by the court. O'Connor authored the court's opinion in a case that recognized a private cause of action for claims of retaliation under Title IX and authored the lengthy dissent from the court's opinion recognizing disparate impact claims for plaintiff in age discrimination cases. O'Connor's position as the swing vote has often placed her at the center of many of the court's most important and controversial labor and employment cases, and her departure raises significant questions as to the direction such cases win take in the future.
Retaliation A-Z: Legal Analysis and Practice Tip
Workplace retaliation claims - in which the plaintiff alleges that he or she was retaliated against for having exercised his or her rights under the anti-discrimination statutes - are an increasingly important component of employment discrimination litigation. Retaliation claims are comparable to, but distinct from, statutory discrimination and harassment claims.
The Washington Post reports on letter sent by Debra S. Katz to Fred Fielding, White House Counsel
The Washington Post quoted from Ms. Katz's letter to Mr. Fielding concerning Special Counsel Scott Bloch's obstruction of the investigation of the OPM IG into allegations of prohibited personnel practices and other serious violations of federal law by Bloch, including retaliation against employees who disputed his policies. "Debra S. Katz, the lawyer, contended that Bloch 'has succeeded in obstructing and delaying this investigation,' most recently by directing current and former staff aides to refuse to provide answers to questions from the OPM inspector general, Patrick McFarland. In the letter, Katz said that 'Bloch's end-game here is obvious. He intends to play out the clock through the end of the president's term and avoid any responsibility or consequences for his misconduct.'"
No One Likes Snitches, Including Judges
In real life, the federal judges charged with interpreting that law don't seem to like it much. Ever since it began taking these cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington has weakened protections for whistleblowers while making it easier for managers to retaliate.
Federal Circuit a 'hostile' forum?
Originally passed in 1989, the Whistleblower Protection Act was intended to provide a mechanism for civil service employees to challenge retaliation and disclose waste, fraud and abuse. The act, unlike many other whistleblower provisions, allows employees to seek intervention by an outside independent agency, the Office of Special Counsel; access to an administrative legal proceeding to hear their case at the Merit Systems Protection Board; and, ultimately, access to the Federal Circuit to hear appeals of board decisions.
Evidence Issues in Harassment and Retaliation Cases: The Plaintiff's Perspective
Plaintiffs should be permitted to present evidence that defendants Adams, Martin, and Parker engaged in sex discrimination against other women at XYZ's Washington office. Although plaintiffs themselves do not raise claims based on failure to promote, or unequal wages, evidence of this sex discrimination is relevant to show defendants' discriminatory animus against women in the workplace. Evidence relating to other claims of discrimination and retaliation may be relevant to issues of motive and intent and also to plaintiffs' entitlement to punitive damages. The D.C. Circuit held that it was reversible error to exclude such evidence in the retaliation context, since "evidence showing that the employer followed a broad practice of retaliation and responded to any protected criticism with disciplinary action has some probative value on the issue of the employer's likely motivation here."
Harassment in the Workplace, ALI-ABA Course of Study
This chapter provides an overview of harassment employment law claims under Title VII and Section 1981, with an emphasis on sexual and racial harassment claims, and a briefer presentation of concurrent state civil rights remedies.
Discrimination Complaint Against Exxonmobil Corporation
This is a civil action against defendant Exxon-Mobil Corporation for declaratory and monetary relief, for injuries sustained by plaintiffs Sofiene Romdhani, Michelle Maloney, and Bobbi Joe Zeller as a result of defendant's religious, race, and national origin discrimination and retaliation against them, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and as a result of defendant's race discrimination and retaliation, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Whistleblowers: Can a Whistleblower Get Justice? Can Her Lawyer Get Paid?
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) oversees the implementation and enforcement of various statutes designed to protect employees from retaliation when they report unsafe environmental practices. The purpose of these anti-retaliation provisions is generally to protect employees whose actions aid the government in the enforcement of laws designed to protect the public. See English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) (noting that the "protection of employees" is the primary purpose of the environmental whistleblower statutes); Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm'rs v. Dept. of Labor, 992 F.2d 474, 479 (3rd Cir. Apr. 16, 1993) ("Whistleblower provisions are intended to promote a working environment in which employees are relatively free from the debilitating threat of employment reprisals for publicly asserting company violations of statutes protecting the environment such as the Clean Air Act and nuclear safety statutes."); Willy v. Coastal Corp. 855 F2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1988).
The Right to Complain
The boss retaliated when you claimed discrimination? A new ruling makes him pay. Even exclusion from lunch invitations at the workplace can support claims of retaliations.
Keeping the Employee Working: Reasonable Accommodations and Leave Requirements
Because courts have held that asking for a reasonable accommodation is a form of protected activity, the civil rights attorney should also consider a claim of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 12203. It is important to note, however, that there is currently a split of authority on the question of whether a plaintiff may recover compensatory and punitive damages for a retaliation claim under the ADA. Compare Kramer v. Banc of Am. Secs. (holding that compensatory and punitive damages are not available under the ADA) with Edwards v. Brookhaven Sci. Assocs., LLC (concluding that compensatory and punitive damages are available under the ADA). If the relevant jurisdiction does not allow recovery for compensatory and punitive damages, not only will the plaintiff be limited to equitable remedies, including injunction and back pay, but the plaintiff may also be denied the right to a jury trial.