Retaliation
583 بار بازدید -
3 سال پیش
-
In retaliation cases, an employee
In retaliation cases, an employee is disadvantaged because of having engaged in protected activity related to civil rights in employment. If civil rights laws are to be more than a hollow pretense, protecting persons who act to uphold their rights or help others do so is absolutely essential. As with other types of discrimination cases, courts use a structured approach to decide retaliation cases.
This method is similar to how disparate treatment (pretext) cases are analyzed, but here the focus is on mistreatment stemming from an employee’s protected activity, rather than because of an employee’s protected class characteristic(s). To have a retaliation claim, an employee must first have engaged in “protected activity.” The two broad classes of protected activity are participation and opposition.
Participation refers to involvement in the enforcement of an antidiscrimination law, such as by filing a charge, bringing a lawsuit, giving testimony, and assisting in the investigation of a discrimination charge. Opposition refers to resisting or speaking out against discrimination apart from participating in formal enforcement procedures. Opposition might look like complaining about discrimination to supervisors or contacting civil rights organizations.
In general, protection against retaliation does not hinge on the correctness of an employee’s perceptions of discrimination. However, protection of employees who engage in opposition is more equivocal than protection of employees who participate in formal enforcement processes. Employees who oppose their employer’s discriminatory practices cannot engage in illegal activities, disrupt the work of others, disparage the company’s product, or release confidential documents and still expect to be protected against retaliation.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must also show that a materially adverse action was taken. Note that this term does not specifically refer to employment opportunity. The final element of a prima facie case of retaliation is evidence of a causal link between engagement in protected activity and the occurrence of a materially adverse action.
This method is similar to how disparate treatment (pretext) cases are analyzed, but here the focus is on mistreatment stemming from an employee’s protected activity, rather than because of an employee’s protected class characteristic(s). To have a retaliation claim, an employee must first have engaged in “protected activity.” The two broad classes of protected activity are participation and opposition.
Participation refers to involvement in the enforcement of an antidiscrimination law, such as by filing a charge, bringing a lawsuit, giving testimony, and assisting in the investigation of a discrimination charge. Opposition refers to resisting or speaking out against discrimination apart from participating in formal enforcement procedures. Opposition might look like complaining about discrimination to supervisors or contacting civil rights organizations.
In general, protection against retaliation does not hinge on the correctness of an employee’s perceptions of discrimination. However, protection of employees who engage in opposition is more equivocal than protection of employees who participate in formal enforcement processes. Employees who oppose their employer’s discriminatory practices cannot engage in illegal activities, disrupt the work of others, disparage the company’s product, or release confidential documents and still expect to be protected against retaliation.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must also show that a materially adverse action was taken. Note that this term does not specifically refer to employment opportunity. The final element of a prima facie case of retaliation is evidence of a causal link between engagement in protected activity and the occurrence of a materially adverse action.
3 سال پیش
در تاریخ 1399/12/19 منتشر شده
است.
583
بـار بازدید شده