Watch out -- if you show your a** too much, you may not win your retaliatory discharge case.
A federal judge in New Jersey granted summary judgment to an employer in a Title VII retaliation case. Happens all the time. But this plaintiff -- we'll call him "Ryan," because that's his name -- was fired after he had signed an affidavit supporting a co-worker's discrimination claim against the company, and after he had filed his own retaliation charge against the company.
In other words, plenty of "protected activity" to support a retaliatory discharge claim. In fact, Ryan apparently felt so good about his case that he moved for summary judgment against the employer. (This is unusual, although it does happen from time to time.)
So, what ruined it for him? He got caught making an a** of himself.
One day, a supervisor sent out an email that Ryan thought was extremely stupid. Ryan sent an email to a co-worker describing in detail just how stupid he thought this supervisor was. (WARNING: Do not read pages 2-3 unless you can tolerate strong language.)
Some time later, the co-worker resigned, and the company went into the co-worker's email to check on the status of his projects. While in his email, they found this colorful -- dare I say "asinine"? do I double-dare spelling it "assinine"? -- email from Ryan. Ryan was promptly told that his services were no longer required.
Don't forget to check out the July Employment Law Blog Carnival, hosted by yours truly. The theme is 1950's Summer Road Trip (on Route 66), featuring a virtual superhighway of great HR- and employment-law-related blog posts.
Generally, to win a retaliation case, you have to show (1) legally protected activity -- of which Ryan had tons, (2) adverse employment action -- and getting fired is clearly "adverse," so Ryan had that, too, and (3) a "causal connection" between the legally protected activity and the adverse employment action (uh-oh). In other words, the plaintiff in a retaliation case has to show that "more likely than not" he was fired/demoted/denied a raise/deprived of his red Swingline stapler because of his protected activity.
Sometimes an employee will engage in legally protected activity and then do something very boneheaded -- like quit working, tell the boss to drop dead, or steal or falsify documents.
QUESTION: If the employer fires him for that, is it retaliatory?
ANSWER: No. Duh.
As the judge pointed out, misconduct after legally protected activity "breaks" the "causal connection" between the protected activity and the adverse action. So if you engage in legally protected activity -- like filing a charge, or making an internal complaint of harassment or discrimination, or testifying truthfully on behalf of another employee -- but then follow it up by being an a**, then you could lose your job, followed by losing your retaliation case.
Instead, you should be on your very best behavior after doing anything "protected." That is the best way to (a) have a strong retaliation case if the employer ever takes action against you, and (b) better yet, never need to file a retaliation charge or lawsuit at all because your employer will love you as a model employee and keep you around until the day that you decide to quit or retire.
The judge in our case had some pretty strong language of her own for the plaintiff, calling his communication a "foul email," and saying that the NSFW* email was "one-of-a-kind in the annals of prose."
*Not Suitable For Work.
So, don't think your protected activity makes you immune from the standards of behavior that apply to everyone else. Just because you filed a charge doesn't mean you get to be an a**.
Finally, this case gives me a good excuse to provide the following public service message about emails and text messages:
- They are forever, and they can almost always be traced back to you. (No plausible deniability.)
- Once you've sent them, you lose control over who besides your intended recipient receives the message. Because of this thing called "forwarding."
- Through forwarding, it is easy to exponentially increase the number of people who get your messages. That's how things "go viral."
- So, act accordingly when sending electronic communications.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010