Category: Termination

Retaliation Federal Law

Preventing Federal Retaliation Claims

According to EEOC statistics, retaliation is the most common basis for discrimination or harassment claims against employers. Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an adverse employment action against an employee for filing a complaint or otherwise participating in protected activity. Adverse actions include firing, giving undesirable assignments, and harassment. A retaliation claim can be asserted even if the original discrimination or harassment claim turns out to be unfounded, so long as the claim was made in good faith.

In addition to preventing lawsuits, employers should avoid retaliation because of its harmful effects on the workplace. Employees often do not report perceived harassment or discrimination because they fear reprisals from supervisors or other employees. If employees don’t report and potential issues remain unresolved, it can harm productivity and produce higher turnover. If employees see that their employer does not tolerate retaliation, they are more likely to report concerns.

Retaliation claims can arise in many contexts:

Title VII

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, covered employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or by their association with others who are of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Therefore, if an employee files a discrimination claim, employers should ensure that they suffer no adverse employment action because of the filing.

Disability Accommodation

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, “no person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.” This means employers cannot retaliate against employees for requesting reasonable accommodations, such as a disabled cashier asking if he can sit on a stool while working.

Sexual Harassment Investigation

Sexual harassment cases are ripe for potential retaliation because the alleged harasser is often higher in the chain of command than the alleged victim. Employers should ensure that employees who feel they are being harassed have multiple avenues of reporting their concerns to management.

Retaliation for Contesting Terms of Employment

Many other federal laws and agencies afford employees protection against retaliation.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, it is illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for filing charges with the NLRB or participating in that agency’s investigations or proceedings.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act. This law requires employers to pay minimum wage and overtime. It also prohibits retaliation against employees’ efforts to assert their rights under the FLSA.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforces various “whistleblower” provisions. These include protections from retaliation for employees raising workplace safety or health concerns.

What Constitutes Retaliation?

U.S. Supreme Court cases have clarified what the scope of adverse employment actions can constitute retaliation if they are in reaction to protected activity. This includes retaliation for oral or written complaints. The standard is whether the employer’s response would deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. Examples include:

● Strongly opposing a promotion or denying a raise
● Denying training or mentorship opportunities
● Poor performance reviews
● Exclusion from meetings or projects
● Changing shifts or work assignments

Claims of retaliation can arise even after the employment relationship has ended. Negative job references can constitute retaliation if an employer gives them because the former employee made a complaint. Refusing to provide a reference can also be retaliation, as can informing a potential future employer of protected activity. For example, the Supreme Court found retaliation for requesting disability leave when an employer described a former employee’s leave for “medical issues” in a job reference.

Retaliatory references are unlawful regardless of whether they affect the potential employer’s decision. However, whether the employee obtains the job may reduce the monetary relief available to the employee. To reduce the risk of liability, many employers adopt a neutral reference policy. By policy, these employers only give the dates of employment and final job title. Employers with these policies must apply them consistently and equally.

Zone of Interests

Adverse employment actions can be unlawful even if they are not directed against the employee who claims retaliation. The Supreme Court looks at whether the employer’s retaliatory conduct affects the employee’s “zone of interests.”

The “zone of interests” includes family members. For instance, the Supreme Court held that an employer unlawfully retaliated by terminating the husband of an employee who filed a charge of sex discrimination. The Supreme Court has not clarified whether the “zone of interests” includes friends. But it has ruled out mere acquaintances.

Conclusion

Employers must train supervisors and managers to avoid retaliation. These employees must know that no one can retaliate throughout or after an investigation. During an investigation, employers should inform participants of the company’s retaliation policy and encourage them to report perceived retaliation. If an employee alleges retaliation, the employer should conduct another investigation into the claim.

Conducting Your Next Reduction in Force

Conducting Your Next Reduction in Force (Webinar Recap)

On May 22, 2018, I presented a complimentary webinar called “Conducting Your Next Reduction in Force.” For those who couldn’t attend the live webinar, I’m happy to make it available for you to watch at your convenience.

Click here to watch the webinar now.

In the webinar, I discuss:

  • Selection Procedures
  • Notice Requirements
  • Severance Programs
  • Union Issues

An important focus is on planning and executing a reduction in force without creating liability. This includes avoiding discrimination based on protected characteristics such as age, race, and sex.

Don’t have time to watch the whole webinar right now? Click here to download the slides from the webinar.

Why You Should Watch “Conducting Your Next Reduction in Force”

Whereas discharging one employee can be problematic, the potential claims arising from a group termination multiply.

If your organization is contemplating separating multiple employees at this same time for related reasons, then you should benefit from this presentation. I discuss some specific steps for the reduction in force from beginning to end. I offer insights on what can go wrong and what your business should do to avoid missteps.

Learn how to cover your legal bases while downsizing, rightsizing, and more here.

Don’t Miss My Future Webinars!

Click here to sign up for my email newsletter to be among the first to know when registration is open for upcoming programs!

Contesting New York Unemployment

Contesting New York Unemployment Claims

Are departing employees eligible for unemployment? As usual, it depends. To claim unemployment insurance benefits in New York, employees usually must be totally unemployed, yet available for and seeking work. After that, the most important factors are whether the employee has worked long enough to qualify and the reason for separation from employment. Here, we’ll focus on that last question, as it’s the one employers most often use in contesting unemployment claims.

Before we go any further, here are related free webinars that might interest you:

Why Isn’t the Employee Working?

Unemployed individuals with sufficient recent work history will receive unemployment insurance benefits unless they became unemployed because of a disqualifying reason.

The primary disqualifying reasons for loss of employment are:

  • Voluntary resignation
  • Misconduct

Neither category is entirely straightforward under New York’s unemployment law.

Voluntary Resignation

Employees who quite a job entirely of their own accord usually will not receive unemployment benefits. However, there are some exceptions.

First, the departure must be truly voluntary. Employees who have no real choice but to “resign” may still receive unemployment. This could occur where the employer gives the employee the option to either resign or be terminated. It also includes situations where the employer was treating the employee unlawfully such that the employee understandably felt compelled to leave.

A second scenario is more surprising to employers. Suppose an employee resigns from Company A to work for Company B. If the employee then loses their job with Company B soon enough and for a non-disqualifying reason, then Company A may be credited with some portion of the employee’s resulting unemployment claim. Company A seldom can do anything to avoid or contest this result.

Misconduct

Many employees lose their jobs due to workplace misconduct. However, many of those employees will still receive unemployment benefits. Even when employers contest unemployment claims, proving disqualifying misconduct is difficult.

To win an unemployment claim based on misconduct, an employer must prove either extremely bad behavior or prior specific warning of the consequences for the behavior. In most cases, poor performance will not rise to the level of misconduct under the New York unemployment law.

Examples of misconduct that may justify a denial of unemployment benefits include theft, physical violence, falsifying documents, and workplace drug use. In addition, any misconduct that constitutes a felony should disqualify an employee.

Many other forms of misconduct that support termination of employment will not necessarily result in denial of benefits. These may include poor attendance, insubordination, carelessness, and violation of employer rules. However, any of these behaviors could constitute disqualifying misconduct under the right circumstances. Usually, this requires prior warning of the specific improper behavior and the future consequence of termination followed by more incidents.

Overall, the analysis of misconduct depends on the facts. But close calls usually get decided in the employee’s favor.

Minimizing Successful Unemployment Claims

Most New York employers of any size must accept some unemployment claims as part of doing business. Obviously, one way to avoid these claims would be never to let anyone go against their will. But that probably isn’t a good business model.

Employers who want to minimize the impact on their claims history can take precautions before discharging employees. This includes having clear discipline policies that spell out what forms of conduct are unacceptable. But that alone probably is not enough. Even if not written into policy, most employers will want to follow the concept of progressive discipline. This allows that extreme misconduct will cost employees their job in the first instance. However, employees will get a second chance for less consequential missteps. Any discipline notices should then include specific language about the consequences of further violations. When warranted, that would be termination of employment. With that prior warning in place, an employer’s chances of contesting the employee’s unemployment claim will increase.

For more about ending the employment relationship, check out these webinars: Don’t Fire Me on Friday and Conducting Your Next Reduction in Force.