Retaliation

In Parts 1 and 2 of our series of blog posts discussing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Enforcement Guidance on workplace retaliation, we discussed promising practices that employees can use as a framework for determining whether retaliation has taken place and what constitutes a protected activity. Assuming an employee is the victim of retaliation

We first discussed the newly released retaliation Enforcement Guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in our blog post titled “EEOC Issues Updated Guidance on Workplace Retaliation.” However, due to the comprehensive nature of this Enforcement Guidance, we were only able to discuss the subject of promising practices, which was one of many

Over the next four blogs, we will provide an overview of the key elements of the EEOC’s recently released Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. Today, we begin with an overview of retaliation and an explanation of the EEOC’s suggested “protected practices.”  Retaliation in the workplace is widespread and forms the most frequently cited

In most employment discrimination cases, the issue revolves around bias against the employee or job applicant because of an employee’s personal characteristics (such as color, race, religion, or sex), while retaliation cases are based on what an employee does. In retaliation cases, plaintiffs need to prove that because they did something (like file a complaint

The proverbial saying “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” is often represented by three wise monkeys, each covering its eyes, ears, or mouth. Depending on the culture, this maxim can refer to a lack of moral responsibility through deliberate ignorance. The courts have coincidentally used the idea of the three wise monkeys