Skip to main content

Publications

Jun 2013
25
June 25, 2013

Court Ruling in Alleged Retaliation Case Favors Employers


Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court removed some uncertainty about firing employees who have previously complained about racial or sexual harassment. Its decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar reduces the risk for an employer who disciplines or discharges a poor-performing employee after the employee has made complaints about alleged discrimination or harassment.

It is not uncommon for an employee who suspects discipline or discharge to come forward with complaints of discrimination or harassment to insulate himself or herself from the consequences of poor performance. If the employee is disciplined or discharged, he or she will then claim it was in retaliation for the complaints.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee who sues a former employer claiming retaliation under Title VII must prove that the termination was because he or she complained of racial or sexual discrimination. If the employee can only show that the complaint was a factor in the employment decision but cannot prove that it caused the decision, the employee loses.

The EEOC and the lower court had ruled that a former employee needed only to show that his or her complaint was a factor in an adverse employment decision. This standard made it more likely that an employee would ultimately succeed in court. In rejecting the EEOC’s position, the Supreme Court explicitly referenced the financial and reputational costs of litigation to employers, noting that it is inconsistent with Title VII to impose those costs “on an employer whose actions were not in fact the result of any discriminatory or retaliatory intent.”

The practical effect of yesterday’s decision for employers is to reduce somewhat the risk associated with  disciplining or discharging a poor-performing employee who earlier complained of race or sex discrimination or harassment.

If you have questions about disciplining or discharging an employee who has complained of discrimination or harassment, please contact a member of Warner Norcross & Judd’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

Warner attorneys submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Michigan and 11 other states supporting the position ultimately taken by the Supreme Court.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset