According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law prohibits employers from punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights. They have the right to be free from employment discrimination.
Asserting these rights falls under the umbrella of “protected activities”.
For example, it’s unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for…
Filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
Communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination
Answering questions during an investigation of alleged harassment
Refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
Resisting sexual advances
Intervening to protect others from sexual advances
Requesting accommodation for a disability
Requesting accommodation for a religious practice
Asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages
The law protects an employee under all circumstances for participating in a complaint process. It also protects any actions an employee takes to oppose discrimination. As long as the employee has a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, this remains true.
However, engaging in EEO activities does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers may discipline or fire employees if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons.
An employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activities. They cannot discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination.
For example, depending on the circumstances, situations could be retaliatory if an employer takes one of the following actions because of an employee’s protected activities:
Reprimand the employee
Give an employee a performance evaluation that is lower than it should be
Transfer the employee to a less desirable position
Engage in verbal or physical abuse;
Threaten to make, or actually make reports to authorities
For example, threats of reporting immigration status or contacting the police
Increase scrutiny
Spread false rumors,
Treat a family member negatively
For example, cancel a contract with the person's spouse
Make the person's work more difficult
As much as we would like to believe that a company wouldn’t condone harassment and other illegal activities, it does happen. When someone makes a complaint, companies do sometimes retaliate against the complainer. Sometimes they retaliate against the victim of the illegal conduct too.
We would also like to think that this kind of behavior from companies is something of the past. Unfortunately, they are still happening today. The following situations are real-life examples of cases of retaliation in the workplace.
Table of Contents
Dillard's - April 2023
Dillard’s Inc. for firing an employee after complaining of discrimination and asked for pregnancy accommodations. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Dillard’s in late April 2023.
In February 2020, a long-time Dillard sales associate informed her new manager about being pregnant. The previous manager granted her these accommodations. The new store manager rescinded the accommodation.
A few days later, the new store manager transferred the sales associate to another department without warning or explanation. The employee struggled to maintain her sales numbers after the change.
In March 2020, the sales associate complained about her transfer. She claimed it was discriminatory based on her African American skin complexion and pregnancy status. Dillard’s did not address the complaint. They instead furloughed the employee in April 2020 with several other employees. The sales associate wasn’t invited back to work.
In August 2020, Dillard’s fired the sales associate and replaced her with a lower-performing employee.
Such allegations violate the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the sales associate. They also want injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.
Pacific Culinary and CB Foods - April 2023
Pacific Culinary Group, Inc. and CB Foods Inc. are two companies involved in the sale, production, and/or distribution of Asian food products. They both violated federal law when they failed to prevent and correct ongoing sexual harassment and retaliation.
As such, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in late April 2023.
According to the lawsuit, since at least 2020, the two companies subjected both female and male workers at their Monterey Park, California location to ongoing verbal and physical sexual harassment.
The harassment included, but isn’t limited to…
Frequent and offensive unwanted groping and touching of their bodies
Unwelcome sexual advances and comments about their appearance
Inappropriate questions about employees’ sexual preferences and sexual activities
Allegedly, the Chief Operating Officer was the main perpetrator. Despite receiving multiple complaints of harassment, the companies failed to take action. Therefore, the sexual harassment continued.
The EEOC also claims that when the employees reported the harassment, they faced retaliation from the company. The retaliation involved further harassment and/or discipline, including termination.
The unlawful employment practices resulted in intolerable working conditions. This made some of the workers quit.
Such allegations violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. It also makes it illegal to retaliate against employees facing discrimination.
The EEOC’s suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for a class of individuals. They also ask for injunctive relief intended to prevent and correct discrimination.
Downtown Grand Hotel & Casino - April 2023
DTG Las Vegas, LLC; Fifth Street Gaming, LLC; and DTG Las Vegas Manager, LLC do business collectively as “Downtown Grand Hotel and Casino”. These companies failed to provide reasonable accommodations to several disabled employees. The employers interfered with employees' rights. They also and retaliated against those who exercised those rights.
As a result, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Downtown Grand Hotel and Casino in early April 2023.
According to the EEOC, since at least 2018, the company failed to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
These disabilities include, but are not limited to…
Levoscoliosis
Sciatica
Cancer
The EEOC also alleges that the Downtown Grand Hotel and Casino interfered with employees’ rights to ask for accommodation. The company retaliated against employees who requested accommodations. They subjecting them to over-scrutiny, threats of discipline, and (in one case) discharge.
The company’s failure to accommodate and its interference with the rights to request an ADA accommodation led employees to feel forced to quit.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Act prohibits discriminating against workers due to a disability. It also says an employee needs to provide reasonable accommodations for them unless it encourages the employer's undue hardship. The ADA makes it illegal for a company to retaliate against any individual exercising their rights.
The EEOC seeks monetary damages for the victims, including compensatory and punitive damages. They are also seeking injunctive relief against the company to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.
Total Systems Services - March 2023
Total Systems Services LLC is a global payment processing company based in Georgia.
The company violated federal law when it denied repeated requests by an employee with a disability to work remotely. The employee believed this to be a reasonable accommodation due to the increased risk related to COVID-19.
The company further violated the law by retaliating against the employee for taking medical leave to avoid exposure.
As such, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Total System Services in late March 2023.
According to the lawsuit, from May to August 2020, a customer service representative with a disability in Total System’s call center repeatedly requested to work remotely due to their disability. You see, she had a “high risk” status concerning COVID-19. At the time, the employee’s call center co-workers were regularly testing positive for the virus.
Based on the employee’s doctor’s recommendation, she requested remote work after a May 2020 workplace Covid-19 exposure. The company denied the employee’s reasonable accommodation request.
To avoid further exposure, the employee went on medical leave until a remote position became available. By the time the employee’s leave expired in July 202, most of the department was working remotely. Yet the company continued to deny the employee’s reasonable accommodation request. The employee felt forced to resign in August of that year to ensure her safety.
Total Systems’ conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In the lawsuit, the EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the employee. They are also seeking injunctive relief to prevent further discrimination.
Total Employment and Management - March 2023
Total Employment and Management (TEAM) is an employment firm based in Washington and Oregon. The company agreed to pay $276,000 to reconcile a national origin discrimination and retaliation charge filed with the EEOC. The company also agreed to take other corrective actions in late March 2023.
According to the EEOC, TEAM imposed a “no-Spanish” rule without adequate business justification to support it. The agency also allegedly fired five employees from two of the company’s Washington locations for opposing the rule and continuing to speak Spanish.
The EEOC considers blanket English-only rules that forbid employees from speaking any other language during the work day, even during breaks or away from customers, to be a form of national origin discrimination.
Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act prohibits national origin discrimination and retaliation against anywho who opposes illegal discrimination.
According to the terms of the four-year conciliation agreement, TEAM will provide $276,000 in monetary relief to affected employees.
Also, the company agreed to…
Update policies and procedures in English and Spanish
Provide an alternative, anonymous complaint process for employees
Promptly respond to and investigate complaints of harassment and discrimination
Train all Washington-based employees
The company will provide periodic updates and reports to the EEOC.
PRC Industries - March 2023
PRC Industries is an e-commerce remanufacturer. The company violated federal law by tolerating racial harassment of two African American workers. The company then fired those workers in retaliation for reporting the harassment.
The EEOC filed a lawsuit against PRC in late March 2023
According to the lawsuit, the company hired a married African American couple in January 2020 to work at PRC’s repair facility in Reno, Nevada. These two workers faced constant racial taunts and slurs from their supervisors.
The couple also observed that the supervisors harassed other African American employees due to their skin tone. This conduct occurred in front of co-workers and managers.
Despite receiving notice of racial harassment, senior personnel failed to take adequate steps to curb the misconduct. This includes individuals like a site manager and a vice president.
In late May 2020, the company fired the couple via text message by one of the supervisors accused of harassment. This came after the couple continued to report the offensive treatment,
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act prohibits harassment due to race. It also requires employers to take prompt action to investigate and stop the misconduct after receiving notice.
The EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit. They want the employees to receive back pay. The suit seeks injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.
Burger King Franchise - January 2023
North Georgia Foods, Inc. is a Georgia-based company operating several Burger King restaurants, including one in Murphy, North Carolina. This franchisee agreed to pay $60,000 and provide other relief to settle an EEOC sexual harassment, retaliation, and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, a team member at the Murphy, North Carolina Burger King location experienced sexual harassment from a male assistant manager.
The harassment included…
Vulgar sexual comments
Threatening behavior
Unwelcome sexual touching
The team member complained many times. She asked not to work with the male assistant manager.
North Georgia Foods did not take action to stop the harassment. Instead, they removed the team member from the schedule completely in June 2019. The company refused to communicate with the team member and later refused to reinstate her employment.
The EEOC also alleges that the team member faced discrimination because of her pregnancy.
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This part protects employees from sex-based harassment in the workplace.
The company was able to resolve this suit in a two-year consent decree that prohibits North Georgia Foods from discriminating and retaliating against employees.
The company must also…
Prominently post a telephone number for an off-site reporting official
Revise its written anti-discrimination policies
Train employees on the process for reporting complaints of discrimination
Train employees on the requirements of Title VII, including its anti-retaliation provisions
Conclusion
The EEOC has multiple offices designed to help victims of discrimination and retaliation. Each office processes charges of employment discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation within their jurisdiction.
After the EEOC helps victims file a retaliation lawsuit, the potential settlement will depend on the unique set of circumstances. Workplace retaliation lawsuit settlements also depend on the extent and severity of the situation at hand.
At the end of the day, harassment and retaliation is never acceptable. If someone faces retaliation from their employer, the employer can face a lawsuit. Everyone deserves to work in a safe environment. They should never have to fear their coworkers or superiors.
If you are uncomfortable or the workplace environment is intolerable due to harassment of any kind, you have the right to file a complaint. You also have the right to potentially pursue compensation.
