Retaliation for a Claim of Discrimination Is a Big NO-NO

by Michael Haberman on May 12, 2011 · 1 comment


Many smaller company managment teams are not aware that retaliation against someone for filing a claim of discrimination is as bad as the original discrimination. Most larger companies are aware of that, at least the HR people are. However, even larger company HR people may not be aware of how far the “net” of retaliation protection is now cast. Everyone needs to know this.

In a Supreme Court decision earlier this year the definition of who is protected from retaliation just got broader. The case of Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP provided us with this new broader definition. Here are the facts of the case in brief. Miriam Regalado and Eric Thompson worked together at the company. They started dating and later became engaged, a fact widely known throughout the organization. At one point Ms. Regalado filed a charge with the EEOC claiming gender discrimination by her supervisor. Three weeks after the company received the discrimination charge Mr. Thompson, the fiance, was fired. No action was taken against Ms. Regalado. Mr. Thompson then files a claim of retaliation. In review his case the lower court said he had no claim. He had not engaged in any protected activity and thus had no claim. They even said that even if his fiance’s EEOC claim was the basis for his firing he still had no basis for a lawsuit.

The Supreme Court was then presented with the question “Does Title VII forbid an employer from retailating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party closely associated with the employee, such as a spouse, family member or fiance?” The Supreme Court’s response was that Title VII does indeed prohibit action that “might well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”  In other words if your employees knew that you might punish a family member or fiance if they filed a charge with the EEOC they might be less likely to engage in a right they have.

The Supreme Court said that Mr. Thompson was protected from retaliation because he fell in the “zone of interests” that was protected by Title VII. It was well known that he was her fiance. The court fell short of providing a clear definition of what that “zone of interest”. Obviously a family member is clearly covered but an acquaintance seldom. That leaves a great deal of gray area in between.

The lesson I see in this is that retaliation on claims of discrimination is just a big NO-NO. Before you enter into disciplinary action against an individual with a clear relationship with someone who has filed a claim against the company make sure of the reasons you are conducting discipline. If it is to send a message, rethink your actions. If it is truly performance based then make sure you have ALL your documentation in proper order. Because if you don’t you will see court action on it and may very likely lose.

Be Sociable, Share!

Sign up for free HR Solutions updates via email

Omega HR Solutions, Inc. uses creative human resource solutions to provide answers to time, money and service issues with employers and their employees. Visit our Products and Services page for more information or contact us to learn how we can help your organization.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

chris aka newresource May 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm

Wow, I am kind of glad about this because, I worked someplace with a close family member and saw wrong doing but decided not to file a claim for fear of retaliation against them and not me.
Zones of Interest….

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: