That escalated quickly.
A university fired its HR director and asked him to return his work laptop. He refused for months. Campus police eventually obtained a felony arrest warrant. When the former employee finally showed up with the laptop, officers arrested him. He then sued for retaliation. Continue reading
A manager allegedly makes racially inappropriate jokes. Months later, the company eliminates a position in a nationwide cost-cutting initiative and reduces an employee’s hours. So she sues for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
But she loses. Continue reading
Employees do not need to use legal buzzwords to be protected from retaliation. But they do need to complain about the right thing.
General workplace grievances are not the same as opposing unlawful discrimination, and courts continue to enforce that distinction. Continue reading
Me? I probably would not tell the EEOC that I removed a Black employee from work because of her “introduction of race” into the workplace. Especially after she complained about race discrimination triggered by a question about attending a Black Lives Matter protest.
But that is exactly what happened here.
And it is exactly why the employer lost on retaliation at summary judgment. Continue reading
Performance improvement plans are often treated as neutral management tools. This case shows how quickly a PIP can become the centerpiece of a retaliation claim once an employee raises equity concerns. Continue reading
If retaliation claims could be proven just by pointing to an employer’s handbook, summary judgment would be extinct. This court made clear that policies don’t replace proof. Continue reading
HR professionals do not have a crystal ball. When an employee files an EEOC charge, no employer can predict how that dispute might later be reframed in a lawsuit or expanded with new legal theories.
A recent Fourth Circuit decision recognizes that reality, while still reinforcing something practical for employers and HR teams alike: the EEOC charge plays a meaningful role in defining the case that follows. Continue reading
Sometimes retaliation isn’t loud. There’s no demotion, no firing, no pay cut. It shows up quietly instead – more work than everyone else gets, repeated just often enough to send a message.
That kind of retaliation can be harder to spot, but as a recent decision out of the District of Columbia shows, it can still land an employer in serious trouble. Continue reading
Employers often assume that launching an investigation is a safe harbor.
The Tenth Circuit just delivered a reminder that when decisionmakers rely on a flawed investigation, the process can matter as much as the decision itself.
TL;DR: The Tenth Circuit revived two Title VII retaliation claims after a physician reported alleged sexual harassment by another doctor and was later terminated and reported to a state licensing board. Although an investigation alone is rarely actionable retaliation, the court held a jury could find that a one-sided internal investigation – including skipped interviews, selective fact-gathering, and uncritical reliance by senior decisionmakers – supplied the retaliatory animus and causation for materially adverse actions under a cat’s paw theory.
Retaliation requires awareness. Without it, there’s no causal link—no matter how suspicious the timing may feel. A recent Third Circuit decision underscores a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil reality employers should understand. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog