In January, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposed updated enforcement guidance regarding retaliation under federal employment discrimination laws. As with the agency’s other recent guidance, the EEOC takes a broad view of what types of employer conduct is prohibited.
Retaliation is already the most frequently filed claim with the EEOC, accounting for 43 percent of all private sector charges filed in fiscal year 2014. If the EEOC’s proposed guidance becomes final, employers should expect to see heightened enforcement.
As the EEOC notes, it has not updated its retaliation guidance in nearly two decades. In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts have issued key rulings regarding retaliation.
“Retaliation is a persistent and widespread problem in the nation’s workplaces,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. “Ensuring that employees are free to come forward to report violations of our employment discrimination laws is the cornerstone for effective enforcement. If employees face retaliation for filing a charge, it undermines the protections of our federal civil rights laws. The Commission’s request for public input on this proposed enforcement guidance will promote transparency. It will also strengthen EEOC’s ability to help employers prevent retaliation and to help employees understand their rights.”
The Anatomy of a Retaliation Claim
Retaliation occurs when an employer unlawfully takes action against an individual for exercising rights protected by federal statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In general, a retaliation claim has three elements:
The individual either “participated” in EEO activity or otherwise “opposed” discrimination;
The employer took adverse action; and
A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.
In its updated guidance, the EEOC adopts expansive definitions with regard to each of the above elements. It starts with the position that “[a] retaliation claim, whether based on participation or opposition, is not defeated merely because the underlying challenged practice ultimately is found to be lawful.” In terms of participation, the agency also advises that “participation” encompasses internal EEO complaints to company management, human resources, or otherwise made within an employer’s internal complaint process before a discrimination charge is actually filed with the EEOC or a state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency.
With regard to causation, the EEOC incorporates the “convincing mosaic” standard into its guidance. According to the agency, it interprets the standard to mean that a charging party may cite different pieces of evidence which, in combination, are sufficient to allow an inference of retaliatory intent. As the guidance further explains:
The pieces of that ‘mosaic’ may include, for example, suspicious timing, verbal or written statements, comparative evidence that a similarly situated employee was treated differently, falsity of the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action, or any other “bits and pieces” from which an inference of retaliatory intent might be drawn.
Finally, the EEOC proposes a broad definition of adverse action, defining it as “any action that might well deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.” The guidance further states that “[a]n adverse action may also be an action that has no tangible effect on employment, or even an action that takes place exclusively outside work.” In addition, the EEOC advises that “[i]f the employer’s action would be reasonably likely to deter protected activity, it can be challenged as retaliation regardless of the level of harm.”
The proposed guidance is now open for public comment. We will be closely following its status and will provide updates as they become available.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
EEOC Proposes Updated Retaliation Guidance
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The EEOC Proposes Updated Retaliation Guidance
In January, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposed updated enforcement guidance regarding retaliation under federal employment discrimination laws. As with the agency’s other recent guidance, the EEOC takes a broad view of what types of employer conduct is prohibited.
Retaliation is already the most frequently filed claim with the EEOC, accounting for 43 percent of all private sector charges filed in fiscal year 2014. If the EEOC’s proposed guidance becomes final, employers should expect to see heightened enforcement.
As the EEOC notes, it has not updated its retaliation guidance in nearly two decades. In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts have issued key rulings regarding retaliation.
“Retaliation is a persistent and widespread problem in the nation’s workplaces,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. “Ensuring that employees are free to come forward to report violations of our employment discrimination laws is the cornerstone for effective enforcement. If employees face retaliation for filing a charge, it undermines the protections of our federal civil rights laws. The Commission’s request for public input on this proposed enforcement guidance will promote transparency. It will also strengthen EEOC’s ability to help employers prevent retaliation and to help employees understand their rights.”
The Anatomy of a Retaliation Claim
Retaliation occurs when an employer unlawfully takes action against an individual for exercising rights protected by federal statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In general, a retaliation claim has three elements:
The individual either “participated” in EEO activity or otherwise “opposed” discrimination;
The employer took adverse action; and
A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.
In its updated guidance, the EEOC adopts expansive definitions with regard to each of the above elements. It starts with the position that “[a] retaliation claim, whether based on participation or opposition, is not defeated merely because the underlying challenged practice ultimately is found to be lawful.” In terms of participation, the agency also advises that “participation” encompasses internal EEO complaints to company management, human resources, or otherwise made within an employer’s internal complaint process before a discrimination charge is actually filed with the EEOC or a state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency.
With regard to causation, the EEOC incorporates the “convincing mosaic” standard into its guidance. According to the agency, it interprets the standard to mean that a charging party may cite different pieces of evidence which, in combination, are sufficient to allow an inference of retaliatory intent. As the guidance further explains:
The pieces of that ‘mosaic’ may include, for example, suspicious timing, verbal or written statements, comparative evidence that a similarly situated employee was treated differently, falsity of the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action, or any other “bits and pieces” from which an inference of retaliatory intent might be drawn.
Finally, the EEOC proposes a broad definition of adverse action, defining it as “any action that might well deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.” The guidance further states that “[a]n adverse action may also be an action that has no tangible effect on employment, or even an action that takes place exclusively outside work.” In addition, the EEOC advises that “[i]f the employer’s action would be reasonably likely to deter protected activity, it can be challenged as retaliation regardless of the level of harm.”
The proposed guidance is now open for public comment. We will be closely following its status and will provide updates as they become available.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
