Whew!
Got a little carried away with yesterday’s post about the employee who got fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination, didn’t I?
Then again, I’m not the one who came up with the hashtag #donglegate.
Is this Retaliation 2.0?
Two weeks ago, Adria Richards attended an industry conference at which she overheard sexual jokes from two attendees sitting behind her during a session. So, she complained…on Twitter:
Not cool.Jokes about forking repo’s in a sexual way and “big” dongles.Right behind me #pycon twitter.com/adriarichards/…
— Adria Richards (@adriarichards) March 17, 2013
And then she blogged about it here. The social-media complaints resulted in one of the joke tellers getting fired. And, last Wednesday, Ms. Richards tweeted that her employer supported her.
Hey @mundanematt, it’s clear from the last 24 hours you’re a bully.@sendgrid supports me.Stop trolling.
— Adria Richards (@adriarichards) March 20, 2013
That same day, SendGrid, Ms. Richards’s employer, fired her.
(Jon Brodkin at arstechnica.com has the full story here).
We can argue about the propriety of using social media to publicize a harassment complaint, especially when a private complaint could have sufficed. Still, the SendGrid response certainly seems harsh and unfair.
But did SendGrid go so far as to retaliate (as a matter of law) against Ms. Richards?
Find out, after the jump…
Of all employment claims presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, retaliation numero uno. It’s been that way since 2010.
There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim: (1) protected activity — opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process; (2) adverse action; and (3) causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
This post focuses on “opposition to discrimination.” Specifically, is withdrawing from what one perceives to be a sexual advance by one’s employer opposition to discrimination and, thus, a protected activity?
The answer after the jump…
Or sexually harass your co-workers.
Unless, of course, you consider my working Hollywood manuscript: “An EEOC Complaint Is Your Free Pass to Sexually Harass.” I know, the title needs work, but with C. Thomas Howell, Tawny Kitaen real star power and a producer.
** Immediately regrets sixth shot of Drambuie with breakfast **
There’s a point to all of this, and some employer tips too, after the jump…
* * *
No body shots here; just a swift federal court kick to Coyote Ugly’s social-media jewels.
You get the ice. I’ll pour a double and serve up the details after the jump…
What makes retaliation the most common discrimination claim in America?
I suspect it’s because other forms of discrimination (e.g., race, gender, disability) are more difficult to prove and don’t always result in an adverse employment action, such as termination of employment. And since most people like to keep their jobs, they’re more reluctant to rock the boat.
Conversely, retaliation always includes adverse action — quite often a firing — and follows what the law terms a “protected activity” (opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process). So, you have a situation where an employee suspects discrimination is afoot, complains about it, and then gets fired.
In Centucky Kentucky, it’s not retaliation to fire employees who complain about sexual favoritism.
Then again making apple-pie moonshine and using a butcher cleaver to slice off the arm of a Detroit gangster isn’t frowned upon either. At least, that’s what watching Justified teaches me.
But even in Kentucky, they have laws. No, it’s true.
After the jump, you’ll see a KY federal court’s rationale for the latest sexual-favoritism ruling. And I’ll provide some tips for dealing with employees who complain about cushy assignments given to employees who get freaky with management.
Sounds like a bad batch of Pennyroyal Tea. Just another Tuesday here at the ole Handbook.
<div style=”text-align: right;”>The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting here that Courtney Love, Kurt Cobain’s widow, is reuniting the band ** thank you for sparing our ear holes ** being sued by a former assistant seeking, among other things, unpaid overtime. The plaintiff also claims that Love asked her to perform voodoo rituals ** not yet, next paragraph ** unethical duties such as hiring a hacker and forging legal correspondence. The San Francisco Employment Lawyer Blog has more on this case here.
From Hole to holes in a doll pin-cushion, with a hat-tip to @ChaimBook, the Madison St. Clair Record reports here that a Wisconsin woman is suing her former employer for sexual harassment and retaliation. The plaintiff claims that she was forced to look at nude female magazines, calendars and sexually explicit language used by her co-workers and direct supervisor. Fairly standard sexual-harassment fare. What makes this case blogworthy is that, after she complained, the plaintiff allegedly suffered retaliation in the form of two voodoo dolls in her desk, one of which had a black pin stuck into her chest.
If an employee complains that her supervisor is sexting her, making unwelcome physical contact, and telling her that she can get a better work schedule in exchange for “small favors,” you better damn well investigate that!
Ignore it and you risk losing a valuable defense to sexual harassment claim. This is because, generally, to avoid liability for sexual harassment, an employer must demonstrate that it undertook reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment.
But the failure to investigate could cost an employer even more. Like a dead-to-rights retaliation claim too.
Really? Retaliation too? Yes. I’ll explain after the jump…
Billed as a way to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, the Paycheck Fairness Act, did not make it out of the Senate yesterday. The Paycheck Fairness Act earned 52 votes in favor of proceeding to final consideration, eight votes shy of the 60 votes necessary for cloture. The vote came down strictly along party lines, with the two independent senators voting with the Democrats and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) not voting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) changed his vote so that he could bring the bill up again.
In other news…
- The Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals ruled on Monday that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits claims for retaliatory hostile work environment. The decision brings the Eleventh Circuit in line with everyone else.
The Employer Handbook Blog