• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

Retaliation

2009 in labor and employment law, from A to Z

01/05/2010

Our friends at the law firm of Fisher & Phillips LLP recently published this entertaining look at the employment law year that was. From A (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to Z (zealously), 2009 was a busy year for those who track employment law trends.

You don’t have to put up with insubordination

12/24/2009

Employees who file discrimination complaints sometimes end up with a chip on their shoulders while the complaint is pending. And since they know it’s illegal for employers to retaliate against them, they’re on the lookout for anything that seems like punishment. But that doesn’t mean employers have to shy away from disciplining those employees when it’s deserved.

Internal wage-and-hour complaints don’t count as ‘testimony’ in FLSA retaliation cases

12/24/2009

The Fair Labor Standards Act includes a retaliation clause that bars employers from punishing employees who provide “testimony” in FLSA cases. That doesn’t mean, however, that employees who complain internally about wage-and-hour issues are automatically protected.

Keep the faith: You can accommodate religions in the workplace

12/15/2009

Two employees ask their boss to ax the company Christmas tree. A worker refuses to trim his dreadlocks, saying they are essential to his practice of Rastafari. A cashier insists she has a right to tell customers, “Have a blessed day.” Those cases have all wound up being tried in court. Employers can’t treat employees differently because of their religion, but that doesn’t mean religious accommodation is easy.

Be ready to come down hard on managers and supervisors who use ethnic slurs

12/15/2009

Employers that let bosses get away with ethnic slurs risk having an unsympathetic jury decide whether and how severely to punish them. If you don’t send a strong message to those who use slurs that such behavior is unacceptable, you risk creating a corporate culture that encourages more of the same—and you may also empower supervisors to retaliate against the targeted employee.

When it comes to retaliation fears, don’t sweat the small stuff—because courts won’t

12/11/2009

Sometimes it seems as though anything an employer does after an employee complains about discrimination can get turned into a retaliation case. It’s not actually that bad. The fact is, it’s only retaliation if it would dissuade a reasonable employee from complaining in the first place. Minor workplace changes don’t count.

Employees who don’t meet whistle-blower law requirements still have legal protection

12/11/2009

The Illinois Whistleblower Act says that employers may not retaliate against employees who disclose to a government or law enforcement agency information about alleged violations of state or federal laws and regulations. But what about employees who don’t go to an agency, but raise their concerns internally?

Beware retaliation suit if lateral transfer harms career

12/11/2009

While employers generally are free to direct their workforces in reasonable ways to meet operational needs, they can’t retaliate against employees for complaining about possible discrimination. While a mere reassignment to another department in a retail store isn’t retaliation, a transfer or series of transfers that limits future opportunities may be.

After FMLA leave, don’t presume future needs

12/09/2009

Here’s a problem to warn supervisors and managers about: When an employee with a disability returns from FMLA leave, don’t assume she can’t do her job or will need more time off. If or when the time comes, then you can decide how to handle time off. Until then, assume all is well.

Take sexual harassment complaints seriously—even if they involve past lovers

12/09/2009

Some employers wrongly believe that when co-workers end what was a consensual sexual relationship, one employee can’t later claim sexual harassment for post-breakup conduct. The dubious assumption: Any subsequent unpleasant contact between the employees was probably based on jealousy or anger over the broken relationship rather than “on account of sex.” That’s not always true.