A Primer in Retaliation: New Developments and Interrelation with Diversity Goals   Phillip J. Trobaugh Mansfield, Tanick &...
Federal Statutes with Retaliation Provisions: <ul><li>Occupational Safety & Health Act  </li></ul><ul><li>Surface Transpor...
Laws Forbidding Retaliation/Reprisal in the Context of Discrimination: <ul><li>State: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minnesota Huma...
188 5,310 30,948 2010 259 4,665 28,948 2009 249 3,992 28,698 2008 198 3,292 23,371 2007 191 2,995 19,560 2006 266 2,849 19...
Retaliation/Reprisal Claim:  The Basics <ul><li>(1)  Employee engages in  statutorily- protected  conduct </li></ul><ul><l...
Looking Closer: “Statutorily-Protected Conduct” <ul><li>Participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Filing a charge of discriminat...
Looking Closer: “Statutorily-Protected Conduct” <ul><li>Opposition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Employee explicitly or implicitly...
Looking Closer: “Adverse Employment Action” <ul><li>Includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ultimate employment decisions: hiring,...
Looking Closer: “Causal Connection” <ul><li>The timing issue: How close in time is close enough? </li></ul>
Example: Reprisal Under the MHRA <ul><li>Employee, a female, was manager of a Cabela’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>She was denie...
Indirect Retaliation: Going After a Third Party <ul><li>Under federal anti-discrimination law: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No  r...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Docs #584866 V1 Retaliation Mcf Ppt Cody Dft 030511

417 views

Published on

Retaliation &amp; Whistleblowing Basics

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
417
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Note difference with general Minnesota Whistle Blower claim : While there need not be an actual violation of law, the reported conduct must at least implicate a violation of law
  • Note : Even actions in the second category can be adverse if they lead to or provide the basis for a negative change in the terms/conditions of employment
  • Docs #584866 V1 Retaliation Mcf Ppt Cody Dft 030511

    1. 1. A Primer in Retaliation: New Developments and Interrelation with Diversity Goals Phillip J. Trobaugh Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. Understanding Key Employment Laws on Your Path to Inclusion
    2. 2. Federal Statutes with Retaliation Provisions: <ul><li>Occupational Safety & Health Act </li></ul><ul><li>Surface Transportation Assistance Act </li></ul><ul><li>Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act </li></ul><ul><li>International Safety Container Act </li></ul><ul><li>Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 </li></ul><ul><li>Clean Air Act </li></ul><ul><li>Safe Drinking Water Act </li></ul><ul><li>Sarbanes-Oxley Act </li></ul><ul><li>Pipeline Safety Improvement Act </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Rail Safety Act </li></ul><ul><li>National Transit Systems Security Act </li></ul><ul><li>Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act </li></ul>
    3. 3. Laws Forbidding Retaliation/Reprisal in the Context of Discrimination: <ul><li>State: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Federal: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. 188 5,310 30,948 2010 259 4,665 28,948 2009 249 3,992 28,698 2008 198 3,292 23,371 2007 191 2,995 19,560 2006 266 2,849 19,429 2005 344 2,500 20,240 2004 319 2,075 20,615 2003 360 1,954 20,814 2002 325 1,850 20,407 2001 318 1,860 19,753 2000 Reprisal Charges Under the MHRA Other Federal Retaliation Charges Retaliation Charges Under Title VII
    5. 5. Retaliation/Reprisal Claim: The Basics <ul><li>(1) Employee engages in statutorily- protected conduct </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Employer takes adverse action against employee </li></ul><ul><li>(3) A causal connection exists between the two events </li></ul>
    6. 6. Looking Closer: “Statutorily-Protected Conduct” <ul><li>Participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Filing a charge of discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participating in the investigation of a charge </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Looking Closer: “Statutorily-Protected Conduct” <ul><li>Opposition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Employee explicitly or implicitly communicates to employer a belief that its activity constitutes a form of employment discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Actual-violation standard : Employee opposed conduct that actually violates the law </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Good-faith, reasonable-belief standard : Employee opposed conduct that she reasonably and in good faith believed was a violation of the law </li></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Looking Closer: “Adverse Employment Action” <ul><li>Includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ultimate employment decisions: hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Actions that provide the basis for changing the terms or conditions of the employee’s job for the worse </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does not include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Job transfer with no difference in wages, benefits, workload, or duties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mere inconvenience or unhappiness on the job </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Denial of request for reassignment to different supervisor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One- to two-hour decrease in hours </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Looking Closer: “Causal Connection” <ul><li>The timing issue: How close in time is close enough? </li></ul>
    10. 10. Example: Reprisal Under the MHRA <ul><li>Employee, a female, was manager of a Cabela’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>She was denied &quot;green sheet pricing&quot; – a discount benefit available to other managers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cabela’s fired her, allegedly because of her continuing dissatisfaction with her job </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Employee argued that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><li>MDHR agreed with employee, leading to settlement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cabela’s paid $80,000 to employee and $10,000 fine </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Indirect Retaliation: Going After a Third Party <ul><li>Under federal anti-discrimination law: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No retaliation against someone so closely related to or associated with the employee that it would discourage that employee from pursuing her rights </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Female employee filed charge of sex discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employer responded by firing her fiance, who also worked for the company </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Title VII prohibits any employer action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination” </li></ul></ul>

    ×