On Monday, August 10, the Fourth Circuit rejected the application of the “manager rule” in the Title VII context, finding it “would discourage . . . employees from voicing concerns about workplace discrimination.”

The so-called “manager rule” is a doctrine developed in federal anti-retaliation cases that finds that a manager’s disagreement with an employer’s actions,

Labor Days co-editor Barbara Hoey was interviewed on Bloomberg Television’s Bloomberg West regarding interim Reddit CEO Ellen Pao’s gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, LLC. Ms. Pao claimed that Kleiner Perkins paid and promoted men more than women and engaged in workplace retaliation by terminating her

In Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, the Fourth Circuit recently made clear that the McDonnell-Douglas test is alive and well, rejecting a District Court’s decision which had attempted to back away from the traditional test in evaluating a plaintiff’s burden of proof in a Title VII case.

Foster, a university police officer, alleged

Most practitioners know  that Title VII prohibits retaliation against any employee because he or she “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice [by the statute].”  Title VII does not define “oppose,” but the Supreme Court has held that it should have its ordinary meaning – “to resist or antagonize . . . ; to

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), it is unlawful “to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint … related to” the FLSA. Previously, the Second Circuit held that only an employee who actually filed a formal written complaint with a government agency was

A Title VII plaintiff can prove retaliation using either the direct or indirect method.  Under the direct method a plaintiff must prove (1) that she engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the two.

In Greengrass v. International Monetary System Ltd., No. 13-2901 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment decision of the District Court and determined that an adverse employment action included listing an employee’s name in publically available filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC’).

In September 2007, Greengrass made a written complaint to IMS alleging harassment by a manager, and subsequently quit her job in November 2007.  In January 2008 Greengrass filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against IMS alleging sex discrimination,  national origin discrimination, and retaliation.  In July 2008 IMS received correspondence from the EEOC seeking information regarding other sexual harassment claims leveled against the company and, in January 2009, IMS received notices that the EEOC wanted to conduct interviews regarding Greengrass’s charge of discrimination. In September 2009 the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Greengrass and other females as a class were subject to harassment because of their sex and national origin, and Greengrass and females, as a class, were constructively discharged because of their sex, national origin, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.  In December 2009 the parties resolved Greengrass’s original EEOC charge of discrimination through conciliation, which did not include IMS’s rehiring of Greengrass.

As a publically traded company, IMS is subject to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC’) periodic reporting requirements. Specifically, IMS is required to describe any material legal proceedings, including principal parties, facts giving rise to the proceeding, and the relief sought.  See 17 C.F.R. § 299.103.  IMS did not refer to Greengrass’s charge of discrimination in its 2008 SEC disclosures.  However, for the next SEC filing in April 2009, and less than three months after IMS received notices that the EEOC wanted to conduct interviews (in January 2009), IMS chose to include Greengrass’s EEOC charge of discrimination and to specifically identify her, stating: “On January 20, 2008, Celia Greengrass filed a sexual harassment complaint with the [EEOC].  The claim is still under investigation by the EEOC and IMS believes the claims to be meritless and will vigorously defend itself.”  These SEC disclosures were repeated in a subsequent amendment to the annual report and in a quarterly disclosure in May 2009.

After leaving IMS, Greengrass had difficulties finding and maintaining regular employment, and she attributed this to IMS’s SEC filings that specifically identified her.  Greengrass claimed that a Google search of her name displayed results of IMS’s SEC filings that included her name, and further claimed that a recruiter informed her that she was “unemployable” due to this information.  Thus, in September 2010, Greengrass filed a second EEOC charge of discrimination alleging IMS retaliated against her by identifying her in its SEC filings because of her previous charge of discrimination, and after receiving the EEOC right-to-sue letter, subsequently filed a lawsuit against IMS alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended.
Continue Reading Publically Traded Companies Beware: An SEC Filing Can be Evidence of an Adverse Employment Action in a Claim of Retaliation

The Illinois Supreme Court recently clarified the element of causation in its ruling in Michael v. Precision Alliance Group, LLC, 21 N.E.3d 1183 (Ill. 2014). In Michael, employees who reported about certain practices of Precision’s that resulted in an investigation by the Department of Agriculture, and whose employment was subsequently terminated, brought a