How can your business avoid retaliation claims? Just do what this company did.

When an employee complains about discrimination or unethical business practices, there’s often a concern that they’ll construe any subsequent adverse employment action as retaliation.

In a decision I read last night, a Michigan federal judge determined that a company had not retaliated against an employee who was fired not too long after he complained that he witnessed several sales representatives at his company engage in “fraudulent business practices.”

So, how did the defendant avoid the plaintiff’s whistleblower claim?

First, it articulated a documented, legitimate business reason for termination. After the plaintiff blew the whistle, another coworker complained to management that the plaintiff had engaged in quid-pro-quo sexual harassment. She presented the defendant with communications purportedly demonstrating that the plaintiff used his position as leverage for intimate activities. Upon receiving the coworker’s complaint, the company investigated it and concluded that the plaintiff had violated the defendant’s harassment policy, consequently terminating his employment.

Second, someone who was not involved with the initial whistleblowing event—didn’t even know about it—made the defendant’s decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment. A successful claim of retaliation requires a nexus between the protected activity—here, the whistleblowing about “fraudulent business practices”—and a subsequent adverse employment action, like the plaintiff’s termination of employment.

The plaintiff believed that the defendant’s President had it in for him. However, the defendant’s Executive Vice President and Chief Talent Officer decided to terminate him. Not only was she unaware of the fraud complaint, but she also investigated the harassment complaint. Axiomatically, the plaintiff’s earlier complaint had no bearing on her termination decision because she was unaware of it. The plaintiff had no evidence to the contrary, nor could he tie the President, who did know about the earlier complaint, to the termination decision. Even if the defendant were wrong about the quid-pro-quo harassment allegation, it would not reflect discriminatory animus — only that its decision was unwise or imprudent.

And that’s not illegal.

When employers create parallel tracks where ultimate decision makers responsible for adverse action don’t know about an employee’s earlier protected activity, they can often avoid retaliation claims.