Most laws granting rights to employees include anti-retaliation provisions intended to protect the employees who exercise those rights. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no exception. Buffalo, MN based Izza Bending Tube & Wire and Wells Fargo & Co. recently learned that lesson the expensive way. That is, via costly settlements of EEOC employment retaliation charges.
Both cases were investigated by the Minneapolis, MN area office of the EEOC. In the Wells Fargo case, the EEOC determined that an employee reported to the company’s human resources department that she was being subjected to differential treatment based on her race and national origin. The agency also found that the employee’s supervisor told her not to speak Spanish during her non-duty time. Shortly after the employee’s report, the EEOC found, Wells Fargo disciplined and then terminated the employee for practices other employees regularly engaged in without discipline. This, the EEOC concluded, violated the employment retaliation provisions of Title VII.
To resolve the charge, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $295,000.00. The company also agreed to:
- Conduct training on the laws prohibiting employment discrimination, with special emphasis on employment retaliation and English-only speaking requirements;
- Distribute to all employees an annual e-mail affirming its commitment to diversity, multilingual ability and the use of languages other than English in the workplace;
- Report to the EEOC all allegations of discrimination or employment retaliation annually for three years.
In the Izza case, the EEOC alleged that a manager first instructed an employee to not hire a black temporary worker for a permanent position and then told the employee to get rid of him because of his race. The EEOC further alleged that after the employee filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, she was laid off and then terminated in retaliation. Izza settled the case by paying $45,000.00 and agreeing to train employees and report any retaliation complaints to the EEOC.
The main takeaway from these cases is that retaliating against employees who exercise their Title VII rights is by itself a violation of Title VII, and resolving those cases can be extremely expensive. The same holds true for employees who exercise their rights under theMinnesota Human Rights Act and many other employment laws. Moreover, preserving access to the justice system by fighting employment retaliation under Title VII is one of theEEOC’s 2013-2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan priorities. Therefore, employers would be wise to make prohibiting employment retaliation one of their HR priorities. Or, start digging.
For more information about this article, please contact me at [email protected].
The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney. Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA