BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
LAS VEGASPolicies that are applied inconsistently and employer documentation that fails to support, or even contradicts, the stated reason for taking action against an employee can lead to successful retaliation claims against employers, an expert says.
Jonathan Levy, a partner with Santa Cruz, Calif.-based Fair Measures Inc., which provides legal training for managers, issued the warning during a session at the Alexandria, Va.-based Society for Human Resource Management's annual conference last month in Las Vegas.
He said, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, retaliation claims against employers have been up 30%, while all other claims have been down 30%.
There are three elements to the successful retaliation claim, he said: "The employee's got to engage in a protected activity," "something bad" has subsequently happened to him, and "there must be a causal connection" between the protected activity and the adverse job action.
Explaining protected activity, Mr. Levy pointed to the 2005 California Supreme Court decision in Elysa J. Yanowitz vs. L'Oreal USA Inc.
In that case, Ms. Yanowitz refused to follow a supervisor's instructions to fire an employee and "get me somebody hot." She never explicitly told the supervisor she believed his order was discriminatory and later took a stress-related disability leave because of the supervisor's subsequent treatment of her (BI, Aug. 15, 2005). Ruling the retaliation claim could proceed, the court held Ms. Yanowitz was not required to use "legal terms or buzzwords" in opposing the supervisor's discrimination, Mr. Levy said.
Discussing adverse job action, Mr. Levy pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Sheila White vs. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., in which the court held that reassigning Ms. White to a different job and temporarily suspending her pay were retaliatory acts for her earlier complaint of sexual harassment (BI, June 26, 2006). The court ruled an adverse job action can be any material action that "might have dissuaded a reasonable worker" from the protected activity, said Mr. Levy.
As for the time required between the protected activity and the adverse action to establish a successful retaliation claim, "it depends," said Mr. Levy. He pointed to the 2004 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Lawana Porter vs. California Department of Corrections in which the court allowed Ms. Porter to proceed with her retaliation claim even though there was a several-year gap between her sexual harassment complaint and the alleged acts of retaliation.
Five mistakes to avoid
Mr. Levy said the five crucial mistakes employers make are:
In one case, he said, a female employee claimed sexual harassment and provided e-mails that a colleague had sent her as proof. However, when the colleague was called in and questioned, he showed e-mails that she had sent him earlier that "would have made a sailor blush," said Mr. Levy.