ARTICLE
8 August 2013

No Free Pass For Employers On Retaliation Claims

FP
Fisher Phillips LLP
Contributor
Fisher Phillips LLP logo
Fisher Phillips LLP is a national law firm committed to providing practical business solutions for employers’ workplace legal problems. Labor and employment law is all the firm does, offering deep and broad knowledge and experience in the area of the law the attorneys know best. Fisher Phillips attorneys help clients avoid legal problems, are dedicated to providing exceptional client service, and are there when you need them. The firm has over 400 attorneys in 34 offices with 33 locations. Learn more at www.fisherphillips.com.
With all the attention focused on the recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights and same-sex marriage, it was easy to overlook another ruling arising from a Texas case that has significant implications for employers.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

With all the attention focused on the recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights and same-sex marriage, it was easy to overlook another ruling arising from a Texas case that has significant implications for employers. 

The case, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, revolved around complaints by Dr. Naiel Nassar that his supervisor at the university had harassed him and discriminated against him because of his Middle Eastern background, and that a job offer at an affiliated hospital, Dallas Parkland, was revoked because he had complained about the supervisor in a resignation letter to the university. 

According to Nassar, his supervisor had made racial comments and had given his work unwarranted extra scrutiny , as compared to other doctors she supervised.  The Parkland executive who had offered Nassar the hospital position learned about his resignation letter and withdrew the job offer. Nassar sued the university, alleging it had blocked the hospital from hiring him in retaliation for his complaints against his supervisor. 

The Supreme Court ruled that, for an employee to prevail in an unlawful retaliation claim, the employee must establish that retaliatory motive was the reason for an adverse employment action – such as termination, demotion, pay cut or, in Nassar's case, the withdrawal of a job offer. That is, the adverse employment action would not have occurred in the absence of a retaliatory motive by the employer. 

Retaliation claims are here to stay, they are now simply harder for an employee to prove. Employers must still document performance issues, prepare honest, objective and constructive performance evaluations, and consider how issues with similarly situated employees are addressed prior to taking any adverse employment action against an individual.

This article appeared in the July 26, 2013 issue of the Houston Business Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
8 August 2013

No Free Pass For Employers On Retaliation Claims

United States Employment and HR
Contributor
Fisher Phillips LLP logo
Fisher Phillips LLP is a national law firm committed to providing practical business solutions for employers’ workplace legal problems. Labor and employment law is all the firm does, offering deep and broad knowledge and experience in the area of the law the attorneys know best. Fisher Phillips attorneys help clients avoid legal problems, are dedicated to providing exceptional client service, and are there when you need them. The firm has over 400 attorneys in 34 offices with 33 locations. Learn more at www.fisherphillips.com.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More