2024
2023
2021
- Denial of Work-From-Home Requests: A New Era of Discrimination?
- April Showers Bring
- Restrictions on Employee Social Media
- Can Employees Be Forced to Get the Covid-19 Vaccination?
2020
- Holidays...To Pay or Not to Pay, What is Required
- EEOC Update on COVID-19
- Protection of Employee Health Information
- Civil Rights Win for LGBTQ Employees
- OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements During the COVID-19 Pandemic
- The Line Between At-Will Termination and Wrongful Termination
- Regulating Firearms in the Workplace
- Social Media Use in Hiring
2019
2018
- What Not to Wear
- Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harrassment
- Employee Surveillance & Union Formation
- A Lesson in Retaliation
- Employers May Sometimes Judge a Book By Its Cover
- Mind Your P’s and Q’s . . . and BFOQs
- Severance Agreements
- U.S. Department of Labor "Paid" Program
- Revisiting Records Retention
- Calculating the Regular Rate
- Independent Contractor or Employee?
2017
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- DRI Membership: It’s Personal
- Is Extended Leave a Reasonable Accommodation?
- Parental Leave
- Pay Disparity
- Religious accomodation in the workplace
- Equal pay and prior salary information
- I quit! How to avoid constructive discharge
- You Can't Shred Email
- Navigating Unemployment Claims
- Considering Criminal History in Pre-Employment Decisions
- Defamation Claims from Former Employees
- Mixed Motive Causation
2016
- Requesting Accomodation: Kowitz v. Trinity Health
- Antitrust Law in Human Resources
- An Evolving Standard: Joint-Employment
- What Does At-Will Employment Mean for Employers?
- Let's Talk About Wages
- THE FLSA: CHANGES ARE COMING
- Follow Up: Obesity and the ADA
- The Importance of Social Media Policies
- Is Obesity a Qualifying Disability under the ADA?
- Retaliation on the Rise: The EEOC Responds
- What Motivates You?
2015
- "But I thought ...
- Who’s expecting? And what is he expecting?
- Are You Still Doing Annual Performance Reviews?
- Who is Your Employee?
- The unpaid intern trap Part II
- “We’ve been the victim of a cyber-attack”
- So, a Hasidic Jew, a nun in a habit and a woman wearing a headscarf walk into your office?
- The unpaid intern trap
- Pregnancy in the workplace
- Let's talk about honesty.
- "Did You Know" Series - Part I
- Conducting an Internal Investigation
- What HR can look forward to in 2015!
2014
- The chokehold of workplace technology
- Does your company have trade secrets?
- North Dakota Construction Law Compendium for 2014
- Does the North Dakota baby boom affect you?
- Ban the Box? Why?
- The end of the world as we know it
- Everybody has an opinion
- Changes, Changes, Changes!
- Nick Grant presents at North Dakota Safety Council's 41st Annual Safety and Health Conference
- Email impairment: A potentially harmful condition
Feb 11, 2016
Workforce retaliation occurs when an employer unlawfully takes action against an individual in punishment for exercising rights protected by any of the laws aimed at ensuring equal employment opportunities. Rights protected by these laws include participating in the investigation or prosecution of an equal employment opportunity claim or opposing an unlawful practice under any of the equal employment laws. Among these laws are the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Employer retaliation claims have become more prevalent across the country. In 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that retaliation claims reached a record high. In North Dakota, some form of employer retaliation was alleged in over 60% of all charges filed with the Commission. In fact, retaliation is now the most frequently alleged basis for discrimination in private and public employment.
On January 21 of this year the EEOC released its Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. The last time the EEOC published any guidance on retaliation issues was in 1998. In the eighteen years since the last EEOC guidance on this issue there have been numerous court decisions regarding retaliation in employment. Now, the EEOC is seeking to clarify its position and give guidance to employers and employees alike.
The updated guidance addresses a variety of issues, including the elements of retaliation claims, the interaction of an ADA “interference” claim, and specific remedies available in retaliation cases. The scope of this article, however, is limited to the EEOC’s “Best Practices” guidance.
The EEOC’s Best Practices Recommendations
This proposed guidance provides significant insight into how the Agency intends to move forward in investigating and prosecuting retaliation claims. In addition, it provides HR professionals a five step plan to avoid retaliation claims. That plan is as follows:
The Takeaway:
The bottom line here is the EEOC recognizes that retaliation in the workplace has become a widespread problem. The Commission’s renewed attention to the issue demonstrates a commitment on behalf of the federal government to pursue legal action against employers. An understanding and implementation of the EEOC recommendations, discussed above, can help employers avoid costly retaliation litigation with the federal government by preventing the problems from arising in the first place.
The EEOC’s guidance does not have the same effect as a law, regulation, or statute, and as of right now, it is only a draft. There is a 30 day public comment period (ending February 24, 2016). After that period has expired, final guidance from the EEOC can be expected. The full version of the Proposed Enforcement Guidance can be accessed at the following address: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EEOC-2016-0001>
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at amann@ndlaw.com (Minnesota Licensed Only). We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
Disclaimers
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the February, 2016 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.
Retaliation on the Rise: The EEOC Responds
By: Allison MannWorkforce retaliation occurs when an employer unlawfully takes action against an individual in punishment for exercising rights protected by any of the laws aimed at ensuring equal employment opportunities. Rights protected by these laws include participating in the investigation or prosecution of an equal employment opportunity claim or opposing an unlawful practice under any of the equal employment laws. Among these laws are the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Employer retaliation claims have become more prevalent across the country. In 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that retaliation claims reached a record high. In North Dakota, some form of employer retaliation was alleged in over 60% of all charges filed with the Commission. In fact, retaliation is now the most frequently alleged basis for discrimination in private and public employment.
On January 21 of this year the EEOC released its Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. The last time the EEOC published any guidance on retaliation issues was in 1998. In the eighteen years since the last EEOC guidance on this issue there have been numerous court decisions regarding retaliation in employment. Now, the EEOC is seeking to clarify its position and give guidance to employers and employees alike.
The updated guidance addresses a variety of issues, including the elements of retaliation claims, the interaction of an ADA “interference” claim, and specific remedies available in retaliation cases. The scope of this article, however, is limited to the EEOC’s “Best Practices” guidance.
The EEOC’s Best Practices Recommendations
This proposed guidance provides significant insight into how the Agency intends to move forward in investigating and prosecuting retaliation claims. In addition, it provides HR professionals a five step plan to avoid retaliation claims. That plan is as follows:
- Implement Written Employer Policies – Draft a written, plain-language anti-retaliation policy. The policy should address the employer’s expectation of employee conduct. Include examples of what to do, and maybe more importantly, what not to do when allegations of discrimination arise. There should be a reporting mechanism in place for employee’s to air their concerns and a method of informal resolution.
- Train Employees – An employer should make sure that each employee receives a copy of the written anti-retaliation policy and that management understands that any retaliation will not be tolerated. In addition, the company should provide examples of retaliation and how to avoid those problematic situations. Training should not be limited to the office setting, and should be provided to employees that work in all industries, including manufacturing, service and construction industries.
- Directly Address Any Issues that Arise – Sometimes, even with the most proactive anti-discrimination policy, discrimination claims arise. In the event that such a claim is brought, HR officials should respond by re-educating the workforce. Provide information to all parties and witnesses regarding the company’s anti-retaliation policy and advise supervisors and management personnel how they can avoid committing actual or perceived retaliatory conduct.
- Proactively Follow-Up on Discrimination-Related Issues – An employer should then periodically check in with employees, managers and witnesses whenever there is an instance of alleged discrimination. HR professions should identify employee concerns during these conversations. This allows companies to detect perceived retaliation and appropriately address employee concerns before they rise to the level of an EEOC complaint or similar lawsuit.
- Review Any Consequential HR Decisions – Employers should consider requiring an HR specialist, in-house counsel or individual in a management position to review proposed adverse employment actions such as termination or demotion. The EEOC advises that these professions should be able to “know, understand and easily identify” the reasons for taking such actions and ensure that the necessary documentation exists to support such a position. All such decisions must be free from any unlawful motivation.
The Takeaway:
The bottom line here is the EEOC recognizes that retaliation in the workplace has become a widespread problem. The Commission’s renewed attention to the issue demonstrates a commitment on behalf of the federal government to pursue legal action against employers. An understanding and implementation of the EEOC recommendations, discussed above, can help employers avoid costly retaliation litigation with the federal government by preventing the problems from arising in the first place.
The EEOC’s guidance does not have the same effect as a law, regulation, or statute, and as of right now, it is only a draft. There is a 30 day public comment period (ending February 24, 2016). After that period has expired, final guidance from the EEOC can be expected. The full version of the Proposed Enforcement Guidance can be accessed at the following address: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EEOC-2016-0001>
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at amann@ndlaw.com (Minnesota Licensed Only). We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
Disclaimers
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the February, 2016 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.