Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • January 30, 2012

Our friend Judy Greenwald from Business Insurance magazine reported this week that the number of EEOC charges filed in fiscal year 2011 (which ended September 30, 2011) was relatively flat, with the exception of one big category . . . retaliation.

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • January 16, 2012

The 2011 National Business Ethics Survey® was published last week by the Ethics Resource Center. Over the last two decades this biannual report has become a mainstay for tracking trends, assessing data and gathering research on the state of ethics in the American workplace. It has also served as an effective gauge for monitoring hot-button issues in the employment law field. This year's survey continues that trend.

Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • October 06, 2011

Let's play claim or no claim. A company hires two individuals to sell home security services. Promises allegedly are made on bonuses and commissions to be paid based on sales.

Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. • May 03, 2011

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two pro-employee decisions in March 2011 that could have far-reaching implications for employers. The cases offer important lessons for employers seeking to minimize liability for employment law claims.

Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • April 05, 2011

Federal courts continue to police employers who allegedly retaliate against employees who seek to complain of discrimination.

Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • March 18, 2011

Here are some nuggets for employers when defending discrimination claims, courtesy of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Feb. 4 decision in Goring v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Shaw Valenza LLP • March 10, 2011

The law regarding retaliation in the workplace has expanded rapidly in several respects during the last few years. The United States Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, discussed below, demonstrates how far the law may be stretched in this area.

Nexsen Pruet • March 08, 2011

In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (January 24, 2011), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that an employee can bring a retaliation claim under Title VII when a person closely related to the employee, such as a family member or fiancé, has engaged in activity protected under Title VII.

Shaw Valenza LLP • February 28, 2011

Law regarding retaliation in the workplace has expanded rapidly in several respects during the last few years. The United States Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, discussed below, demonstrates how far the law may be stretched in this area.

Vedder Price • February 08, 2011

Employment Law group chair Bruce R. Alper was recently quoted in an issue of Business Insurance concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Eric L. Thompson v. North American Stainless L.P.

Ogletree Deakins • February 08, 2011

On January 24, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing an opinion supported by eight justices, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee who was fired shortly after his fiancée filed a bias charge against her employer may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for third-party retaliation. According to the high court, the employee could be considered an "aggrieved person" under Title VII because he was "well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII." Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, U.S. Supreme Court (January 24, 2011).

Barker Olmsted & Barnier • February 07, 2011

If an employee files an EEOC charge, clearly the federal law protects her from retaliation by the employer. But what if the company leaves the employee alone, and instead targets her co-worker fiancé? Does the fiancé have the right to sue for retaliation under Title VII? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in a recent case titled Thompson v. North American Stainless LP. Ruling in favor of the employee, the Court has dramatically expanded the definition of workplace retaliation.

Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. • February 02, 2011

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") prohibits an employer from discriminating against any of its employees for engaging in protected conduct. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held on January 24, 2011 that an employee who claims that he was terminated because his fiancé filed a discrimination charge against their mutual employer, may pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII.

Jackson Lewis LLP • February 01, 2011

Significantly expanding the scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision to an ill-defined group of relatives, friends, and close associates of a discrimination claimant, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an employee may sue his employer for retaliation after he was fired because his fiancé filed a sex discrimination charge against their mutual employer. Thompson v. North American Stainless, No. 09-291 (Jan. 24, 2011). The Court unanimously reversed the grant of summary judgment to the employer and returned the case for further proceedings.

Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • February 01, 2011

On the heels of the EEOC’s fiscal year 2010 report that for the first time in history retaliation surpassed race as the most frequently filed charge against employers, the Supreme Court approved an unusual theory of retaliation, but one that could even further bolster that trend. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the Supreme Court held 8-0 (Justice Elena Kagan not participating) that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions prohibit an employer from terminating the fiancé of an employee who files an EEOC charge. From this decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, it is now clear that retaliation concerns go beyond the employee who engaged in the protected activity. But the Court refused to specify exactly how far.

Franczek Radelet P.C • January 27, 2011

On January 24, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Thompson v. North American Stainless that an employee allegedly fired in retaliation for a sex discrimination charge filed by his fiance could sue his employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP • January 26, 2011

In an all too rare unanimous ruling (save for Justice Kagan, who recused herself), the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII extends to employees who are in the zone of interest with an employee who has filed a charge of discrimination. The facts and findings follow.

Ogletree Deakins • January 25, 2011

This morning, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing an opinion supported by eight justices, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee who was fired shortly after his fiance filed a bias charge against her employer may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for third-party retaliation. According to the high court, the employee could be considered an "aggrieved person" under Title VII because he was "well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII."

Fisher & Phillips, LLP • January 25, 2011

On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling determined that an employee who does not directly engage in protected activity can still assert a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as a victim who falls within the "zone of interests" of protection afforded by the statute. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated "[w]e think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiance would be fired." And further, that the employee "is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.

Ford & Harrison LLP • January 25, 2011

In a decision that significantly expands the scope of Title VII's prohibition on retaliation, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an employee who claimed he was fired because his fiance filed a discrimination charge should be permitted to proceed with his Title VII retaliation claim. See Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (Jan. 24, 2011). The Court's decision reverses that of the Sixth Circuit, which had held that a third party cannot pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII where he has not personally engaged in a protected activity.

Shaw Valenza LLP • January 25, 2011

Justice Scalia for a unanimous Supreme Court wrote that employees may claim retaliation when they are associated with someone ELSE who engaged in protected activity. What?

Ogletree Deakins • January 25, 2011

If there is one area of Supreme Court jurisprudence that employees can certainly not complain about it is the law of retaliation Today's decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless (S.Ct. 1/24/11) certainly does nothing to change that. A unaminous Court (with Justice Kagan not sitting) held that an employee who had been fired for his fiancee's protected activty was also protected by Title VII.

Ogletree Deakins • January 13, 2011

The headline in today's Daily Labor Report caught my attention, Court Revives Fired Gay Employee's Retaliation, Harassment Claims ($). I thought maybe it was another another step down the road for protection against sexual orientation discrimination, but still within the limits of Title VII. But when I looked at the decision, Dawson v. Entek International (9th Cir. 1.10.11) [pdf] what I found was even more confusing.

Vedder Price • October 22, 2010

Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee who reports discrimination. Title VII's antiretaliation provision contains two clauses: the "opposition clause," which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who has opposed any employment practice prohibited by Title VII; and the "participation clause," which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who has made a charge, testifi ed, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.

Ford & Harrison LLP • July 08, 2010

Although the federal appeals courts were in agreement that a close relationship with someone who has engaged in protected activity under Title VII is not sufficient to permit a person who has not engaged in such activity to pursue a retaliation claim, that issue may now be less than clear. On June 29, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the Sixth Circuit's decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, in which the Sixth Circuit held that a third party cannot pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII where he has not personally engaged in a protected activity.

Barker Olmsted & Barnier • July 08, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case where an employee claimed he was illegally fired because his fiance filed an EEOC charge. The case, titled Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, follows on the heels of another retaliation case decided by the Court. Regardless of the outcome of this case, employers should keep the facts of this case in mind when responding to discrimination claims.

Ogletree Deakins • June 30, 2010

Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog has been all over the reporting of the 6th Circuit decision of Thompson v. North American Stainless, whose latest iteration at that level was an en banc rejection of a retaliation claim brought by an employee fired three weeks after his fiancee' filed a charge of discrimination against the same company. Since he himself did not engage in any protected activity, the en banc court overturned a panel decision which had held he was within the zone of protection of the anti-retaliation provisions.

Fisher & Phillips, LLP • May 07, 2010

From 1997 to 2008, race discrimination was the most frequently asserted claim by individuals filing charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Since 1997, race discrimination has been asserted in approximately 35% of all EEOC charges.

Ogletree Deakins • May 29, 2009

What constitute an employees opposition to conduct such that it is protected under the law?

Ogletree Deakins • April 14, 2009

On January 26, the U.S. Supreme Court once again expanded employ-ees' ability to sue for retaliation. With seven Justices in agreement, plus the remaining two concurring in the judgment, the Court held that an employee who answers a question about a fellow employee's improper conduct during an internal sexual harassment investigation is engaging in "protected activity" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As a result of this ruling, it is likely that employers will face even more retaliation litigation.

Barker Olmsted & Barnier • February 04, 2009

Both federal an California law protect employees who oppose illegal harassment or discrimination, as well as employees who participate in an investigation. What exactly does it mean to "oppose" a practice? The U.S. Supreme Court examined this question in a decision published on January 26, 2009 titled Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville.

Vedder Price • January 29, 2009

Continuing a trend toward protecting employees from employer retaliation, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that reporting discriminatory behavior during an employer's internal investigation is protected conduct within the meaning of Title VII's prohibition on retaliation. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, No. 06-1595 (Jan. 26, 2009). During the course of an internal investigation into rumors that a manager was engaging in sexually offensive behavior, Crawford and other employees were interviewed. In response to questions Crawford stated that the manager had engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior toward her. After she and two other accusers were terminated, Crawford brought suit alleging she was fi red in retaliation for the information she provided during the investigation.

Fisher & Phillips, LLP • January 27, 2009

Today the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Govt. of Nashville expanding the types of employee conduct that can trigger protection under Title VII.

Ford & Harrison LLP • January 27, 2009

On January 26, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee who discloses information about discriminatory conduct in response to questions that are part of an employer's internal investigation is protected by the "opposition clause" of Title VII's prohibition on retaliation. See Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (1/26/09). In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's determination answering questions during an internal investigation was not the type of "active" opposition to unlawful conduct protected by Title VII.

Ogletree Deakins • January 27, 2009

On January 26, the U.S. Supreme Court once again expanded the ability of employees to sue for retaliation. With seven Justices in agreement, plus the remaining two concurring in the judgment, the Court held that an employee who answers a question about a fellow employee's improper conduct during an internal sexual harassment investigation is engaging in "protected activity" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As a result of this ruling, it is likely that employers will face more retaliation claims.

Ogletree Deakins • January 27, 2009

On January 26, the U.S. Supreme Court once again expanded the ability of employees to sue for retaliation. With seven Justices in agreement, plus the remaining two concurring in the judgment, the Court held that an employee who answers a question about a fellow employee's improper conduct during an internal sexual harassment investigation is engaging in "protected activity" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As a result of this ruling, it is likely that employers will face more retaliation claims.

Ogletree Deakins • January 27, 2009

In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reminds us that whether a case is based on allegations of discrimination or on allegations of retaliation, the individual bringing the lawsuit carries the ultimate burden of proof in the case.

Ogletree Deakins • December 22, 2008

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer who asserted that it had terminated the employment of a human resource manager because of his poor performance and a reduction-in-force, and not because of his prior testimony in a sexual harassment claim filed against the company.

Ogletree Deakins • October 15, 2008

Title VII's anti-retaliation provision states that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual because he or she opposes an action prohibited by Title VII. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that an individual's claim of retaliation was not supported by the evidence, because that individual did not necessarily believe that he was being sexually harassed by his supervisor, with whom he was having a consensual sexual relationship.

Fisher & Phillips, LLP • April 02, 2008

Experienced Human Resources professionals know this dilemma all too well -- slackers and malcontents who have learned to use the threat of retaliation claims as a sword instead of a shield. Besides failing to perform their duties, these employees regularly grouse or nitpick, almost daring their supervisors to intervene. Meanwhile, frustrated supervisors put off dealing with poor performance or disruptive conduct.

Ford & Harrison LLP • January 25, 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted review in a retaliation case that could have a significant impact on employers. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee (U.S. cert. granted Jan. 18, 2008), the Court will determine whether an employee who cooperates in an employer's internal investigation of a sexual harassment allegation, where no agency charge has been filed, is protected from retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Ford & Harrison LLP • April 20, 2007

When do you discipline an emlpoyee who has previously complained about discrimination?

Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. • September 13, 2006

Retaliation claims are on the rise, accounting for one out of every four employment claims filed. Courts have long recognized that employer or supervisor mishandling of protected complaints can turn a weak discrimination claim into a strong retaliation claim. On June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court (in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White) solidified this point with respect to Sheila White’s claims arising under the federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII.

Ogletree Deakins • September 12, 2006

Court finds no evidence that gender motivated employer's decision.

Ogletree Deakins • September 11, 2006

Jones Walker • September 08, 2006

Retaliation and Discrimination Just Got Easier To Prove.

Nexsen Pruet • August 09, 2006

Employers have long understood that title VII prohibits retaliation against an employee.

Vedder Price • August 04, 2006

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It also forbids employers from retaliating against employees or applicants for fi ling a charge, participating or assisting in a charge or an investigation, or otherwise exercising rights provided under Title VII.

Vedder Price • July 31, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, No. 05-259 (June 22, 2006), holds that any adverse employment action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from pursuing a charge of discrimination is sufficient to state a claim of retaliation under Title VII. This is the standard used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana), but is broader than the test applied by other appellate courts. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that illegal retaliatory action against an employee can occur outside the workplace.

Ford & Harrison LLP • June 26, 2006

On June 22, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will likely make it easier for individuals claiming retaliation under Title VII to take these claims to trial. See Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White. In this case, the Court held that a person complaining of retaliation under Title VII is not required to prove that the allegedly retaliatory conduct was related to his or her employment or workplace. Additionally, the Court held that a retaliation claim can proceed if the complaining person shows that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which means it might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The standard adopted by the Court in Burlington Northern is more lenient than that imposed by many federal appeals courts.

Ogletree Deakins • June 26, 2006

Supreme Court Clarifies "Adverse Employment Action" In Retaliation Cases.