EEOC Guidelines Provide a Confusing Roadmap to Investigating Retaliation Claims

by Littler
Contact

Employers have been warned time and time again – retaliation claims are on the rise.  With the number of these claims climbing, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued its Final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, which are guidelines for EEOC investigators to use in investigating retaliation claims.  This is the first time in nearly two decades that the Commission has updated these guidelines.1

In the beginning of 2016, the EEOC published proposed guidance for public input.  The proposed guidelines reflected an overall presumption of retaliation (i.e., a presumption of guilt), shifting a claimant’s burden to prove his retaliation claim to the employer to disprove the claim.  Although the final guidelines advance activist views of the anti-retaliation laws for which the EEOC is charged with enforcing – including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (collectively, “EEO laws”) – the revised final guidelines reflect significant revisions and are more objective than what was originally proposed.

Quick Primer on Retaliation in the Workplace

EEO laws prohibit employers from taking an adverse action – e.g., termination or demotion, etc. – against an employee because that employee engaged in protected activity.  There are three primary issues in every retaliation case: protected activity, adverse action, and causation.  Claimants must also show that the employer’s stated reason for the adverse employment action – e.g., misconduct, poor performance, etc. – was a pretext for an unlawful retaliatory motive.

The EEOC Adopts an Expansive View of “Protected Activity”

EEO laws delineate protected activity into two categories: (1) participation in proceedings and investigations occurring under the EEO laws (the “participation clause,” and (2) opposition to conduct made unlawful by the EEO laws (the “opposition clause").  The proposed guidelines, however, take on a much broader view of these two clauses than what is found in the language of the statutes.  

  • The guidelines state that protected activity includes an employee’s participation in internal discrimination complaints to company management, human resources, or other internal complaint processes, even though the plain language of federal EEO laws explicitly limits the participation clause to investigations, proceedings, or hearings occurring under the law, such as EEOC investigations or proceedings. 
  • Although EEO laws, as interpreted by the federal courts, limit protected opposition conduct to circumstances in which the employee opposes unlawful discrimination specifically based on a protected class, the guidelines’ interpretation broadens the opposition clause to include employee complaints that “explicitly or implicitly” communicate an employee’s belief that the employer may be engaging in employment discrimination.
  • The guidelines further expand the opposition clause to include an employee’s opposition to conduct that the employee reasonably believes is unlawful under EEO laws, but which may not actually be prohibited by these laws.  To the contrary, the EEO laws' opposition clauses are specifically limited to an employee's opposition to conduct that is made unlawful by the respective statute. 

Arguably these are fine lines to draw, but these overreaching views reflect the EEOC’s recommendation to its investigators to take a more lenient stance on what is and is not protected activity, and focus more on the causation piece of their investigations. 

The EEOC Confuses the “But For” Causation Standard

EEO laws have all adopted a “but-for” causation standard for retaliation claims.  This is not a difficult concept – it simply means that but for an employee’s protected activity, the adverse action would not have occurred.  In employment law, the competing causation standard is the “motivating factor” standard, meaning that a claimant need show only that a prohibited factor (e.g., race, sex, disability, etc.) contributed to the employment decision—not that it was the but-for or sole cause.  Discrimination claims asserted under Title VII and the ADA are subject to the motivating factor standard, and age discrimination claims and retaliation claims under all EEO laws require a showing of but-for causation.

Although the proposed guidelines recite the but-for standard, the EEOC muddles the explanation of this otherwise straightforward burden of proof.  In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar held that retaliation claims under Title VII must satisfy the “but for” causation standard.  The Court explained: “[i]n the usual course, this standard requires the plaintiff to show ‘that the harm would not have occurred’ in the absence of—that is, but for—the defendant’s conduct.”2  Stated another way, “but for” means “the real reason,” as in the  employee’s alleged misconduct was the real reason for the termination.  Rather than relying on this clear-cut explanation, the guidelines instead advise that “[t]here can be multiple ‘but-for’ causes, and retaliation need only be ‘a but-for’ cause of the materially adverse action in order for the employee to prevail.”  If you are confused by this explanation, you are not alone.  This explanation unnecessarily complicates the “but for” causation standard.3

Sage Advice from the EEOC

The Commission’s final guidelines offer these recommendations to employers:

  • Maintain a written, plain-language anti-retaliation policy, and provide practical guidance on the employer's expectations with user-friendly examples of what to do and not to do;
  • Train managers, supervisors, and employees on the employer's written anti-retaliation policy, and send a message from the company’s leadership that retaliation will not be tolerated;
  • When an employee makes a complaint of discrimination – internal or external – remind all parties involved, especially the subject of the complaint and the managers and supervisors, that the company has a zero-tolerance policy for retaliation, and any retaliatory acts will be met with severe consequences;
  • Check in with employees, managers, and witnesses during the pendency of an EEO matter to inquire if there are any concerns regarding potential or perceived retaliation, and to provide guidance; and
  • Designate a human resources manager, in-house counsel, or other member of management to review proposed employment actions of consequence to ensure they are based on legitimate non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons.

Employers should consider implementing all of these recommendations, if they have not done so already.  Not only will these practices help reduce the number of actual or perceived retaliatory acts, but will help support a company’s defense to retaliation claims filed with the EEOC or in court.

How the Guidelines Affect Employers

Although retaliation claims may be on the rise, that does not mean retaliatory acts are.  Employers face increasing challenges to legitimate employment-related decisions with allegations of discriminatory or retaliatory motives.  And many employees who attempt to avoid being lawfully held accountable for poor performance or misconduct know that an allegation of discrimination or retaliation can slow, if not halt, the disciplinary process.  It is, of course, important that employees participate in EEOC proceedings and oppose conduct made unlawful by EEO laws without fear of reprisal, and it is equally vital to business operations that employers lawfully hold employees accountable for performance, conduct, and reliability deficiencies, including imposing disciplinary measures when warranted.

Whether or not the final guidelines result in an increase in EEOC reasonable cause determinations, it is likely the guidelines will result in more vigorous investigations, especially where disciplinary actions are not well documented.  In addition to the recommendations advanced by the Commission, it is worth a reminder to document all employment-related decisions, including meetings and investigations; be honest with employees about the reasons for the employment action; and enforce employment policies and practices promptly and consistently.

 

 

1 The Final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues can be accessed here: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/retaliation-guidance.cfm

2 Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2525 (2013).

3 There is a body of case law explaining that age discrimination and retaliation cases often present more than one reason for an employer to take an adverse action, and that the employee need not refute each and every mark on her record.  Rather, the employee need only prove that setting the unlawful considerations aside, the other nondiscriminatory grounds did not cause the employer to take the adverse employment action.  See Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009); Arthur v. Pet Dairy, 593 Fed. Appx. 211, 220 (4th Cir. 2015).  This is a far cry from the EEOC’s final guidelines explanation that there can be multiple “but for” reasons causing the adverse action.  

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.