Tag: NLRA

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.

William Emanuel

William Emanuel: New NLRB Member

On September 25, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed veteran management-side labor attorney William Emanuel as the fifth member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Emanuel, who has practiced labor law for more than four decades, gives the Board a 3-2 Republican majority.

This is the first time Republicans have controlled the Board since 2007.

William Emanuel’s Background

William Emanuel received his Bachelor’s Degree from Marquette University and his law degree from Georgetown University. He is a fellow in the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and a member of the Federalist Society.

Emanuel has most recently practiced law with Littler Mendelson P.C. in Los Angeles. Before joining Littler, he also practiced with Jones Day, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP.

He has served as a contributing editor of The Developing Labor Law, which is a leading treatise on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In his confirmation hearing, Emanuel noted:

“In addition to my professional experience in the field of labor law, I also understand the workplace from a practical standpoint. During my college and high school years, I worked as a railroad switchman, brewery worker, construction worker, bartender, grocery clerk, and in several other jobs.”

Opposition to Appointment

The Senate confirmed Emanuel by a 49-47 party-line vote.

As with the recent confirmation of NLRB Member Marvin Kaplan, Democrats opposed Emanuel as anti-workers. Just before the vote, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted: “A man who spent 40 yrs union busting has no business on the NLRB.”

Pro-labor groups, including major labor unions, also opposed Emanuel’s confirmation. In a July 18, 2017 letter to the Senate, the AFL-CIO’s Government Affairs Department wrote:

“Emanuel has exclusively represented employers, most recently at the notorious union-busting law firm Littler Mendelson. He confirmed at his confirmation hearing that he has never represented a worker or union in an employment matter–not even in pro bono work. . . . Neither [Emanuel nor Kaplan] said anything at the confirmation hearing to give working people any confidence that they would vigorously enforce the NLRA consistent with the law’s purpose of protecting workers’ right to organize and promoting collective bargaining.”

On the other hand, pro-business groups welcome Emanuel joining the Board. Sean P. Redmond, Executive Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Workforce Freedom Initiative stated, “Now that the NLRB has a new majority that is unlikely to be as slanted toward organized labor, the Board will have plenty of work to do to restore balance to labor law.”

Expected Impact of Emanuel’s Confirmation

There is every reason to believe that both William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan will adhere to traditional Republican principles on key labor issues. This will ultimately lead to reversal of significant Obama-era NLRB decisions affecting millions of employers and employees. However, because the NLRB members make policy by adjudicating cases brought before them rather than rulemaking, the policy shifts will not be immediate.

Moreover, there are still two positions that President Trump must fill before the NLRB fully transitions.

General Counsel Richard Griffin, a holdover Obama appointee, will leave office when his term expires at the beginning of November. Trump has nominated management-side labor attorney Peter Robb to replace Griffin.

In addition, NLRB Chair Phillip Miscimarra’s term will end in December. He has announced that he will not accept another term. President Trump has not publicly named a candidate for that position. However, early reports suggest that attorney John Ring may be the frontrunner for the Board position. Trump will choose between Emanuel, Kaplan, and Miscimarra’s replacement to serve as the Board’s new Chair.

Don’t miss important updates on the NLRB and other issues affecting employers. Sign up for my management law email newsletter here.