{"id":22,"date":"2011-02-10T20:17:40","date_gmt":"2011-02-11T03:17:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theasoe.com\/blog\/?p=22"},"modified":"2016-01-16T14:58:06","modified_gmt":"2016-01-16T21:58:06","slug":"retaliation-claims-just-how-careful-should-you-be","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theasoe.com\/blog\/?p=22","title":{"rendered":"Retaliation Claims Just how Careful should you be?"},"content":{"rendered":"

RETALIATION CLAIMS \u2013 JUST HOW CAREFUL SHOULD YOU BE? <\/p>\n

sociology papers<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

order celebrex prescription<\/a><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

By now, every employer in the country should have learned that you can\u2019t \u201cretaliate\u201d against an employee because they have made a cialis buy overnight<\/a> claim for employment discrimination.\u00a0 That includes all the standard flavors such as race, religion, gender, sexual harassment, age, disability, national origin and perhaps even sexual orientation.<\/p>\n

For those of you that have a pair or more of family members working for you, <\/span>this January 2011 case means that you need to consider even more of the \u201cfactors\u201d before terminating an employee.\u00a0 In this incredibly damaging ruling for\u00a0 employers, the third party was not even family yet. <\/p>\n

pharmacy canada cialis<\/a><\/div>\n

But this employer never expected he would have to shell out a pile of cash when he terminated the fianc\u00e9e<\/em> of a woman who had filed a claim of sex discrimination.\u00a0 To be sure, the employer took no action against the woman (Ms. Regalado)\u2026just let her claim wind its way through the legal system.\u00a0 I guess he thought that by firing her fianc\u00e9e he would put pressure on her to relent in the pursuit of her claim.\u00a0 Also, my guess is he had probably been told by his lawyer that Title VII does not<\/span> permit third party retaliation claims. Well, turns out he and his lawyer were dead wrong!<\/p>\n

The fired fianc\u00e9e found a creative attorney (believe me, there will always be one lurking out there)<\/strong> who filed a retaliation claim on his behalf against the former employer who thought his actions were protected.\u00a0 The defendant in the case, Thompson v. <\/p>\n

buy viagra online without prescription<\/a><\/div>\n

North American Stainless<\/span>, decided by the Supreme Court on January 24, 2011, raised two seemingly strong defenses to the suit.\u00a0 First, that Thompson had no cause of action since he was not an \u201caggrieved person\u201d under the statute and therefore did not have standing to sue.\u00a0 The argument being that only Ms. Regalado, the person who filed the claim of discrimination (the protected activity), could be an \u201caggrieved person\u201d under the statute.\u00a0 Secondly, North American argued that Thompson\u2019s firing was not \u201cunlawful\u201d since he had done nothing overtly to support Ms. Regalado\u2019s claim and termination of a\u00a0 person who wasn\u2019t a party to the action was not prohibited by the express language of the statute.best kids swimming pool<\/a><\/p>\n

The Court made short shrift of the second argument, ruling that the test was whether the employer’s action well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity (i.e. prosecuting her claim of discrimination).\u00a0 Seriously, there can be little doubt Ms. Regalado would feel pressured by Thompson\u2019s\u00a0 termination.\u00a0 They were engaged to be married.<\/p>\n

The first defense gave the court little pause either.\u00a0 The statute states simply that a \u201ccause of action may be brought by the person claiming to be aggrieved.\u201d\u00a0 The Court rejected North American\u2019s position that “person aggrieved” refers only to the employee who engaged in the protected activity, saying that was “artificially narrow.”\u00a0 However, the Court was unwilling to accept Thompson\u2019s all inclusive argument that standing should be controlled by the exceptionally broad standards of Article III of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Instead, the Court took a balancing position, writing <\/strong>\u201c[T]hompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation – collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer\u2019s unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer\u2019s intended means of harming Regalado (the employee). Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII. He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue\u201d<\/p>\n

So what is the lesson to be learned from Thompson?\u00a0 Simply put, if you ever are subjected to a claim of discrimination, regardless of whether you think it is valid, \u00a0you neither touch the so called \u201caggrieved\u201d employee nor any family member, fianc\u00e9e, close friend or other person who may be supporting the employee in his\/her claim of discrimination.<\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

New Form of Retaliation Lawsuit Green Lighted by Supreme Court!
\n________________________________________________________________________
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n