Articles Posted in Retaliation

Sleep with me, or you’re fired!

August 15, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Sex sells.

My most popular posts at The Employer Handbook — that’s based on you reading them (you’re all sick I tells ya, sick!!! And remember, I’m logging IP addresses) — generally involve some element of sexual behavior. You have the Brazilian self-stimulator. Actually, make that sexual behaviour — there’s the Australian hotel sex romp.

One of my readers asked if I’d heard about the recent sexual harassment lawsuit in Utah (the home of sex in a supply closet), in which a woman alleged, among other things, that her supervisor distributed a work schedule that included included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.” Come on, now. You know me! Just this week, I read five articles (here, here, here, here, here) about it. You can find 23 more articles about “No bra Thursday” here.

“Guess my high score in Leisure Suit Larry.”

Then there’s the NY Post story (naturally) about a 23-year-old lesbian who claims that seven staff members in her real estate office groped, slapped, flashed, fondled and subjected her to racial abuse and death threats. One of the staffers allegedly offered her $60 for oral sex and told her all Puerto Rican girls are good at it.

Me? I like writing about these cases because it’s a good excuse to use stock sexual harassment photos from Google Images — like the one on the right, which, given the size of the shoulder pads in the lady’s jacket and the dimensions of that desktop computer — no doubt housing a 5.25 inch floppy disk drive — is a screencap from L.A. Law.

How about one more sexual harassment case for ya? This time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gets in on the act and reverses summary judgment in favor of an employer where the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and retaliation when her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked her sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her (on the day she complained).

More on this and, of course, lessons for employers, after the jump…

* * *

Fact or Fiction: Retaliation requires job-related action (e.g., firing)

August 10, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post”.

Until about five years ago, a plaintiff had to prove a materially adverse employment action in order to recover for retaliation. (I addressed the complete three-part test for retaliation in yesterday’s post).

Not so anymore. As explained briefly after the jump, the rules for retaliation have changed.

* * *

Apparently, sex in a supply closet is not sexual harassment

August 9, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

At least that’s what a federal court in Utah opined.

I promise that this is not a prurient post gratuitously conceived to drive internet traffic to The Employer Handbook.

And this case has nothing directly to do with Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Delaware employers

(Ok, that last line was shameless. Google, please do not index this post).

Oh, what the heck, index away. After the jump, I’ll even throw in some good employer takeaways for all employers, including those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

Darn it. I did it again…

* * *

This term’s top 5 employment-law Supreme Court rulings…in haiku

July 7, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Last month, the Supreme Court handed down – if not the most important – certainly, the highest-profile decision of this term with Wal-Mart v. Dukes. However, in addition to this headline-grabber, this term saw four other significant employment-law decisions from the High Court about which employers must take note.

After the jump, I revisit each case…in haiku.

* * *

$1,000 fine per day for not posting notice of harassment verdict

June 20, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

There once was an employer in Racine.
With a manager whose antics were racy.
The court said, “You lose!”
Now, tell everyone the news.
And if you disobey, it’ll cost you big money.
*** Although I feel rhyming “Racine” with “racy” was pure Shakespeare, I’m fairly certain that Edward Lear’s corpse just pissed itself ***

After the jump, it’s the employer, found liable for sexual harassment, that refused to abide by a court-ordered notice requiring it to inform its employees about the verdict…

* * *
Continue reading

Yikes! NJ discrimination victims may tack on a whistleblower claim

April 27, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Consider this scenario:

Employee believes he is being discriminated against. Employee complains to Human Resources. HR investigates, but is unable to substantiate the employee’s claims. Employee nonetheless sues his employer, alleging discrimination. While the lawsuit is pending, the employer fires the employee for reasons it claims are unrelated to the pending action.

According to a recent unpublished NJ decision, the employee could have both a discrimination claim and a whistleblower claim under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).

Ain’t that some sh!t!

More on this important decision and the impact it may have on employers, after the jump…

* * *

File this Supreme Court decision under “R” for RETALIATION

March 23, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Thumbnail image for Supreme Court.jpg In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held yesterday that a company may not retaliate against an employee who orally “filed a complaint” about perceived Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations.

After the jump, I’ll break down this decision, just what it means to orally file a complaint, and the impact yesterday’s decision will have on employers.

* * *

Supreme Court okays third-party-retaliation claims

January 24, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

The United States Supreme Court today in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP ruled that an employer violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if it takes action against an employee who is in the same “zone of interest” as another employee who files a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

More on this important decision and the immediate impact that it will have on employers after the jump.

* * *

How to reduce retaliation claims in six easy steps.

January 14, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

The EEOC reported this week that retaliation charges outpaced race discrimination charges at the agency during fiscal year 2010. This is the first time that retaliation charges (under all statutes) surpassed race discrimination charges at the EEOC, making retaliation charges the most frequently type of charge filed at the EEOC last year.

The EEOC’s statistics on retaliation confirm what employers and employment lawyers already know – retaliation claims against employers continue to increase in frequency. Retaliation claims pose a unique hazard to employers; an otherwise baseless claim (for example, an unsubstantiated discrimination claim), when not handled appropriately, can morph into a legitimate retaliation claim. What actions can Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware employers take to prevent a defensible claim from turning into a less than defensible retaliation lawsuit?

My colleague, Katharine Hartman, a labor and employment law attorney who practices with me at Dilworth Paxson LLP, has some suggestions for you after the jump…
Continue reading

Harassment victims don’t get a free lunch

January 6, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

A big part of my job as a labor and employment attorney is providing anti-harassment training to employees and supervisors. First, I help them identify what constitutes unlawful harassment in the workplace. Then I walk them through how to report and address it. Here, I emphasize that retaliation against a victim or a witness is never acceptable and is grounds for immediate termination. But, I also remind everyone that an employee who complains about unlawful harassment doesn’t receive a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is, if the “victim” violates company policy — e.g., by participating in behavior that also violates the anti-harassment policy — then discipline will follow. That’s not “retaliation.” Call it a rude awakening.

Just ask the Eighth Circuit. I’ll explain after the jump.
Continue reading

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.