Two Sixth Circuit Cases Expand The Legal Definition Of Retaliation
April 24, 2008
Retaliation claims remain one of the most likely sources of litigation for employers. The courts continue to broaden the legal definition of retaliation, as two recent Sixth Circuit cases illustrate.
In the first case, an employee claimed that his discharge was in retaliation for an EEOC sex discrimination charge filed by his spouse, who also worked for the same company. The company argued that the employee could not sue for retaliation because did not personally engage in protected activity such as “assisting in his wife’s charge” or “opposing a discriminatory practice.” The court agreed that while a “literal reading of Title VII” requires that a retaliation claimant prove participation in protected conduct, it concluded that this employee’s lawsuit should not have been dismissed because he was “so closely related to or associated with the person exercising her statutory rights [his wife] that it would discourage that person [his wife] from pursuing those rights.” Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 2008 WL 834005 (6th Cir.).
In a second retaliation case, a rejected applicant filed an age discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company had a preference for hiring younger workers. While the litigation was pending, a manager offered the individual a different position with the company. The offer was withdrawn, however, when another supervisor told the manager – in vague terms – about the lawsuit. The individual then brought a retaliation claim against the company. Although courts generally require a decision-maker in a retaliation case to “have knowledge” of the plaintiff’s protected activity, the court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed even though the manager did not know the subject matter of the lawsuit – which could have been a tort action, a contract dispute, or some other non-protected type of litigation. Cline v. BWXT Y-12, LLC, 2008 WL 850228 (6th Cir.)
Together these cases demonstrate the risk that retaliation cases pose for unwary employers. Examples abound of lawsuits in which retaliation claims survive even though the related discrimination or harassment claims are dismissed. Employers should educate all levels of their management/supervisory ranks to minimize the risks of potential retaliation claims.
In the first case, an employee claimed that his discharge was in retaliation for an EEOC sex discrimination charge filed by his spouse, who also worked for the same company. The company argued that the employee could not sue for retaliation because did not personally engage in protected activity such as “assisting in his wife’s charge” or “opposing a discriminatory practice.” The court agreed that while a “literal reading of Title VII” requires that a retaliation claimant prove participation in protected conduct, it concluded that this employee’s lawsuit should not have been dismissed because he was “so closely related to or associated with the person exercising her statutory rights [his wife] that it would discourage that person [his wife] from pursuing those rights.” Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 2008 WL 834005 (6th Cir.).
In a second retaliation case, a rejected applicant filed an age discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company had a preference for hiring younger workers. While the litigation was pending, a manager offered the individual a different position with the company. The offer was withdrawn, however, when another supervisor told the manager – in vague terms – about the lawsuit. The individual then brought a retaliation claim against the company. Although courts generally require a decision-maker in a retaliation case to “have knowledge” of the plaintiff’s protected activity, the court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed even though the manager did not know the subject matter of the lawsuit – which could have been a tort action, a contract dispute, or some other non-protected type of litigation. Cline v. BWXT Y-12, LLC, 2008 WL 850228 (6th Cir.)
Together these cases demonstrate the risk that retaliation cases pose for unwary employers. Examples abound of lawsuits in which retaliation claims survive even though the related discrimination or harassment claims are dismissed. Employers should educate all levels of their management/supervisory ranks to minimize the risks of potential retaliation claims.
