Employee rights in the workplace took a step backward with the Vance and Nassar decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. So what does this mean in concrete terms for employees?
The main takeaway from Vance is that employees must tell upper management and humanresources about workplace harassment. This has been federal law in the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) and the 8th Circuit (Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Missouri and Arkansas). In order to sustain a workplace harassment claim under federal law, employees must now be able to show that management knew about harassment and that management failed to take effective action against the harassment.
Nassar made it more difficult to prove retaliation under federal law. In the 5-4 majority decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court wrote that it was concerned about the increase in retaliation claims filed in the EEOC and the potential for “frivolous litigation.” The effect of this case is that even more retaliation cases will be decided by judges under summary judgment instead of being decided by juries.
However, just because it is harder to bring a discrimination or retaliation case under federal law doesn’t mean that an employee can’t bring a case under state law that could be more favorable to the employee. But employees pursuing wrongful termination cases in state court should be aware that state court judges oftentimes follow federal court judges in interpreting state fair-employment laws. State court judges might find the Supreme Court’s concerns about “frivolous” retaliation suits to be well founded.
I think Justice Alito was off base in his concerns about “frivolous” retaliation where employees who are about to get fired file complaints in order to preserve their job or set themselves up for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Any competent employee-rights attorney knows that retaliation suits are difficult to win. I turn down about 9 out of 10 people who call my office who claim they were wrongfully terminated.
Wrongful termination suits are costly and time consuming. I am not going to invest time and money in a suit where I will likely get dismissed and possibly face financial sanctions under court rules and also possibly be opened up to paying costs to the prevailing employer under federal fair-employment law. I am doubly suspicious of employees who are fired shortly after they file discrimination or other claims.
Employers know that if they fire someone after filing some sort of complaint that it appears to look bad. But courts will uphold that reason if they had a legitimate reason to fire the employee. In other words, the employee who knows they are skating on thin ice and then files a complaint is going to lose a wrongful termination case.
The decision in Nassar won’t stop disgruntled employees from filing claims with fair-employment agencies, it will just make it more difficult for employees with legitimate wrongful termination claims to obtain justice.
Read more about "discrimination" and workers' compensation.
May 07, 2011
A worker in Minnesota was awarded $361,000 against his employer for being discriminated against for filing a workers' compensation claim. The worker alleged that the employer terminated him after he suffered a work ...
Jan 04, 2010
Jon L. Gelman will join a distinguished to panel of attorneys to discuss employment discrimination claims. The seminar to be presented by the NJ Institute for Continuing Education will be moderated by David H. Ben-Asher.
May 12, 2010
A lawsuit was filed under the recently enacted Genetic Information Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) on behalf of a woman who underwent a prophylactic double mastectomy after testing positive for breast cancer. GINA took ...
Jul 28, 2009
The US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals refused to certify a national class of UPS employees who alleged a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination based upon the American Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs had alleged ...