A KANSAS CITY AREA EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY FOR KANSAS EMPLOYEES |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
RETALIATION
The discrimination
laws make it illegal for
an employer to
retaliate against an
employee who
exercises rights
under the federal
employment laws.
Thus, as long as an
employee makes a
reasonable and good
faith allegation of
discrimination, his
employer cannot
retaliate against him.
If the employer does,
this creates an
entirely new violation
of the law.
If your employer
takes any
employment action
after you have
complained about
discrimination, your
rights might have
been violated.
The discrimination
laws make it illegal for
an employer to
retaliate against an
employee who
exercises rights
under the federal
employment laws.
Thus, as long as an
employee makes a
reasonable and good
faith allegation of
discrimination, his
employer cannot
retaliate against him.
If the employer does,
this creates an
entirely new violation
of the law.
If your employer
takes any
employment action
after you have
complained about
discrimination, your
rights might have
been violated.
| For additional updates, click here. |
| Kansas employment law attorney representing Kansas employees in employment disputes concerning race, age and gender discrimination, disability issues, family medical leave (FMLA), civil rights, due process, sexual harassment, wage and hour disputes, wrongful discharge and termination in Kansas City, Johnson County, Overland Park, Topeka, Wichita, and across the state of Kansas. Kansas employees who believe their employment rights have been violated should contact a competent Kansas employment rights attorney who knows federal and Kansas law. |
Updates: Federal and Kansas Employment Cases
| Kansas employees are subject to many state and federal laws that create and define their employment rights. However, it is the courts that have to interpret these laws and decide just how broad the employee's rights are. Most often, the courts that are involved with employment issues in Kansas are the federal Kansas district court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, and the United States Supreme Court. These federal courts are most important because much more employment litigation occurs in federal court than in state court. Still, the Kansas state courts, including the Court of Appeals and the Kansas Supreme Court occasionally render an important decision on Kansas employment law issues. RECENT DECISIONS ON EMPLOYMENT LAW ISSUES Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. White No. 05-259 In this decision, employees finally won a significant victory concerning the issue of retaliation following an employee's complaint of discrimination--in this case, sexual harassment. The case began after a female employee complained about her treatment at the railroad. In September, White complained about how her supervisor, Joiner, had treated her in the workplace. Subsequently, the company disciplined Joiner. On September 26, Brown told White about Joiner’s discipline. At the same time, he told White that he was removing her from forklift duty and assigning her to perform only standard track laborer tasks. Brown explained that the reassignment reflected co-worker’s complaints that, in fairness, a “ ‘more senior man’ ” should have the “less arduous and cleaner job” of forklift operator. On October 10, White filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). She claimed that the reassignment of her duties amounted to unlawful gender-based discrimination and retaliation for her having earlier complained about Joiner. In early December, White filed a second retaliation charge with the Commission, claiming that Brown had placed her under surveillance and was monitoring her daily activities. That charge was mailed to Brown on December 8. A few days later, White and her immediate supervisor, Percy Sharkey, disagreed about which truck should transport White from one location to another. The specific facts of the disagreement are in dispute, but the upshot is that Sharkey told Brown later that afternoon that White had been insubordinate. Brown immediately suspended White without pay. White invoked internal grievance procedures. Those procedures led Burlington to conclude that White had not been insubordinate. Burlington reinstated White to her position and awarded her backpay for the 37 days she was suspended. White filed an additional retaliation charge with the EEOC based on the suspension. The issue before the court was whether the alleged retaliatory acts amount to unlawful retaliation with the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision forbids employer actions that “discriminate against” an employee (or job applicant) because he has “opposed” a practice that Title VII forbids or has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in” a Title VII “investigation, proceeding, or hearing.” §2000e–3(a). No one doubts that the term “discriminate against” refers to distinctions or differences in treatment that injure protected individuals. But different Circuits have come to different conclusions about whether the challenged action has to be employment or workplace related and about how harmful that action must be to constitute retaliation. Although Title VII's retaliation provision uses the phrase, "discriminate against," it means to retaliate against a person who complained about discrimination or participated in an EEOC process. The Supreme Court had to determine whether retaliation that had occurred against White off the work premises would be illegal and just how bad the retaliation had to be. The Court first held the retaliation away from the workplace was illegal. It then went on to stated that a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. "We speak of material adversity because we believe it is important to separate significant from trivial harms. Title VII, we have said, does not set forth 'a general civility code for the American workplace.' Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 80 (1998). An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience." It is important for any employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against for complaining about discrimination or for assisting in an investigation to file a charge of retaliation with the EEOC or the Kansas Human Rights Commission. Click here for an article on how to file a charge with the EEOC. |
| Michael M. Shultz 913-385-9955 |