Administrative handling of workplace retaliation claims
Administrative Handling of Workplace Retaliation Claims: Overview
Workplace retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee for engaging in legally protected activity (e.g., filing a discrimination complaint, reporting safety violations, whistleblowing).
Federal agencies primarily responsible for handling workplace retaliation claims include:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Handles retaliation claims under Title VII, ADA, ADEA, and other discrimination laws.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): Handles whistleblower retaliation claims under various workplace safety and environmental statutes.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP): Enforces anti-retaliation protections for federal contractors.
Department of Labor (DOL): Oversees retaliation claims under laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Typical administrative process:
Filing a charge/complaint: The employee files a retaliation complaint with the appropriate agency.
Investigation: The agency investigates the claim by gathering evidence, interviewing parties, and reviewing documents.
Determination: The agency issues a finding—either reasonable cause to believe retaliation occurred or no cause.
Mediation or conciliation: Agencies often attempt to resolve claims informally.
Right to sue or administrative hearing: If unresolved, the employee may get a right-to-sue letter or proceed to an administrative hearing.
Judicial review: Employees may file lawsuits in federal court.
Key Case Law on Administrative Handling of Workplace Retaliation Claims
1. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006)
Facts: The employee claimed retaliation after filing discrimination complaints, alleging she was reassigned to less favorable duties.
Issue: What standard defines actionable retaliation under Title VII?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that retaliation claims cover any employer actions that might deter a reasonable employee from complaining, not just those affecting employment terms.
Significance: Expanded the scope of retaliation claims, affecting how agencies investigate and evaluate complaints.
2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013)
Facts: The plaintiff claimed retaliation under Title VII.
Issue: What burden of proof applies in retaliation claims?
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that retaliation claims require a “but-for” causation standard, meaning retaliation must be the decisive factor for the adverse action.
Significance: Agencies must apply this stricter causation standard in their investigations and determinations.
3. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (2011)
Facts: The plaintiff reported wage violations and claimed retaliation.
Issue: Whether oral complaints are protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Holding: The Supreme Court held that oral complaints can be protected under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.
Significance: Agencies investigating retaliation claims under FLSA must consider oral reports as protected activities.
4. EEOC v. Universal Engineering Services, Inc. (2018)
Facts: The EEOC sued the employer for retaliation against employees who filed discrimination charges.
Holding: The court recognized the EEOC’s authority to bring retaliation claims and enforce protections.
Significance: Reinforced the EEOC’s role in proactive enforcement of retaliation protections.
5. Kloeckner v. Solis (2012)
Facts: The plaintiff filed a retaliation complaint with OSHA.
Issue: Timing requirements for administrative appeals in retaliation cases.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that employees must exhaust administrative remedies before suing, emphasizing the importance of following agency procedures.
Significance: Clarifies procedural prerequisites for retaliation claims, shaping agency administrative processes.
6. Reich v. Great Lakes Steel Division (1997)
Facts: Employee claimed retaliation under OSHA whistleblower provisions.
Holding: The court held OSHA has broad authority to investigate and remedy retaliation claims.
Significance: Affirms administrative agency’s critical enforcement role in protecting whistleblowers.
Summary of Administrative Handling:
| Stage | Description | Case Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Filing | Employee files complaint with EEOC, OSHA, or other agencies | Kloeckner v. Solis (2012) - procedural rules |
| Investigation | Agency investigates claim, gathers evidence | Burlington Northern (2006) - broad scope of retaliation |
| Determination | Agency finds cause/no cause, applies burden of proof | Nassar (2013) - but-for causation standard |
| Conciliation/Mediation | Attempt to resolve dispute without litigation | EEOC v. Universal Engineering (2018) |
| Hearing/Judicial Review | Right to sue or administrative hearing | Kasten v. Saint-Gobain (2011) - oral complaints protected |
Practical Impact
Agencies are empowered to investigate retaliation claims broadly and interpret “adverse actions” liberally to protect employees.
Stricter causation standards (but-for) make proving retaliation more challenging.
Procedural requirements (like exhausting remedies) are critical in administrative handling.
Agencies often try to resolve claims through conciliation but have enforcement powers including litigation.
Whistleblower retaliation claims are given strong administrative protection under OSHA and related laws.
Would you like me to explain specific administrative procedures or how feder
RELATED Blog
0 comments