A total of 39,469 retaliation charges were filed with EEOC in fiscal year 2018, which ended on Sept. 28, which accounted for 51.6% of the total charges filed. Retaliation means an adverse employment action was taken against the employee because they complained about discrimination on the job, filed a discrimination charge or complaint, or participated in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding.
Following retaliation, sex was the second-most frequent charge filed with the agency in fiscal year 2018, at 24,655, or 32.3% of the total. This was a change from fiscal year 2017, when race was the second-most frequent charge.
Other charges were: disability, 24,605, or 32.2% of the total; race, 24,600, or 32.2% of the total; age, 16,911, or 22.1% of the total; national origin, 7,106, or 9.3% of the total; color, 3,166, or 4.1% of the total; religion, 2,859, or 3.7% of the total; Equal Pay Act, 1,066, or 1.4% of the total; and genetic information, 220 or 0.3% of the total.
The reason for the preponderance of retaliation claims is that they are easier to prove than discrimination claims. It’s difficult to defend when there was adverse action against an employee only days or weeks after filing an EEO charge.
Although retaliation cases for workers’ comp claims are not handled by the EEOC, but by state courts, the challenges of defending them are similar. Similarly, retaliation cases for reporting OSHA violations are heard by federal courts. Two recent cases were decided in favor of employees.
An employee of Lloyd Industries in Pennsylvania was operating a press brake that did not have machine guarding and three of his fingers were crushed and had to be amputated. Another employee took photos to assist the injured employee with his comp claim. After the incident, the injured employee was fired and he filed a complaint with OSHA.
Following the OSHA inspection, the owner stated that there was a “rat” in the facility and fired the employee who had taken the photo five days after the inspection. The inspection resulted in total fines of $822,000, which led the owner to terminate the plant manager for cooperating with the OSHA inspection. The jury found the timing of these terminations was no coincidence and the court will determine damages in the trial’s second phase.
In another case, a Pennsylvania jury awarded $40,000 for lost wages, pain and suffering and punitive damages to a former employee of Hamburg-based Fairmount Foundry Inc. who claimed he was terminated for reporting alleged safety and health hazards.
According to some attorneys, juries seem more inclined to believe that someone would retaliate than discriminate based on race, sex or other protected minority-status factors. Also, the larger verdicts seem to come from the fact that retaliation is viewed as a manager’s reaction (to get even) to the worker’s filing a complaint or for benefits.
To either avoid retaliation charges or successfully defend them, experts advise caution in taking any negative job action against a worker shortly after a case has been filed. However, employers can successfully defend against these claims by producing evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the adverse action, but there needs to be clear, thorough, written documentation of all the facts.
For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com