Offering to Settle an EEOC Charge Can be Unlawful



An employer’s unconditional offer of a light-duty position to a pregnant employee became a conditional offer after the employee filed an EEOC charge, and was rescinded when the employee refused to withdraw her charge. That was unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII, according to the Eleventh Circuit in a recent decision, Chapter 7, Trustee v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. (11th Cir., June 11, 2012).

The employee’s job involved driving a truck from a warehouse to a gate where an airplane was docked, using a lift system to raise the truck’s storage container to the airplane’s height, and then pushing carts of food, drink, and ovens across a ramp from the truck to the airplane.  When the employee’s pregnancy made it impossible for her to perform her job, she submitted a doctor’s note listing various medical restrictions. Her supervisor initially told her that the company had no light duty positions available and purported to fire her.  When the employee filed a union grievance, the employer found a light duty job for the employee and offered to reinstate her in that job, which was consistent with company policy.  Subsequently, when the employer received the employee’s EEOC charge of pregnancy discrimination, the employer conditioned its offer upon the employee’s withdrawal of her charge.  When the employee refused to withdraw her charge, the employer rescinded its offer.

On one level, the employer’s response was natural.  Why would an employer want to reinstate an employee if she is not going to withdraw her charge of discrimination?  The problem here was that the employee should have been given a light duty position to begin with, and when the company realized its error, it offered to reinstate the employee unconditionally.  By imposing a condition on that offer after the employee filed her EEOC charge, the company was punishing the employee for filing the charge.  That is unlawful retaliation, according to the Eleventh Circuit.

The lesson is that once an employee files an EEOC charge, an employer must proceed very cautiously when dealing with the employee.  Employers are free to offer a benefit to an employee in an attempt to settle an EEOC charge. But conditioning the employee’s receipt of a benefit that the employer already owes to the employee on the withdrawal of the employee’s charge will be construed as retaliation.  The difference is critical.


Written by:

Published In:

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.

© Akerman LLP - HR Defense | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.