Employment litigation can often enter the news when it involves salacious or outrageous details, but newsworthy or not, not every employment dispute can be resolved through litigation. Retaliatory discharge (or demotion) claims can often be messy, but employers are not allowed under Federal and Illinois law to retaliate against employees for protected conduct. Employers can insulate themselves from liability by developing procedures and documentation. We can discuss with any size company measures that protect everyone from potential harm.
The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") prohibits an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . . because he has made a charge" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Title VII allows "a person claiming to be aggrieved" to file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleging that the employer committed an unlawful employment practice, and, if the EEOC declines to sue the employer, the statute permits a civil lawsuit to "be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by the alleged unlawful employment practice." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (b), (f)(1).
The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") prohibits an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . . because he has made a charge" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Title VII allows "a person claiming to be aggrieved" to file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleging that the employer committed an unlawful employment practice, and, if the EEOC declines to sue the employer, the statute permits a civil lawsuit to "be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by the alleged unlawful employment practice." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (b), (f)(1).
In the news today is a United Airlines employee that on a flight in September 2010 was allegedly physically assaulted by a passenger. The employee told a co-worker about the incident during the flight and her colleague not only avoided telling the captain, which was required, but instead the colleague reported that the aggrieved was the aggressor. The aggrieved employee was demoted and claims now that the animus for the demotion was retaliation against her making a report of the incident and the subsequent alleged racially animated characterization as "aggressive."
While she has witnesses who will back up her story regarding the physical assault, the racial characterization is a critical element of her retaliation claim. Her demotion is clearly sufficient to form the basis of an adverse employment action, however, the connection to that action and her race is tenuous based on the article.
Read more about it here.
While she has witnesses who will back up her story regarding the physical assault, the racial characterization is a critical element of her retaliation claim. Her demotion is clearly sufficient to form the basis of an adverse employment action, however, the connection to that action and her race is tenuous based on the article.
Read more about it here.
RSS Feed
