Employee, Fired by College for Complaining About Discrimination at Other Workplace, Has Retaliation Claim

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Flowers v. Columbia College
Chicago (2005), reaffirmed the broad scope of the antiretaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.

Columbia College Chicago hired Michael Flowers and assigned him to serve as a guidance counselor at a Chicago public high school, which had contracted with the college for this type of service. The high school principal forbade Flowers from wearing a religious head covering while serving as a guidance counselor. Flowers then filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) naming the public school system as his employer. The school system complained to Columbia College Chicago, which fired him. Flowers then charged the college with retaliation, alleging that the sole reason for his termination was his complaint that the high school had engaged in religious discrimination in violation of Title VII.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that an employer can terminate a person who complains about discrimination elsewhere (i.e., by another employer). The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that an employer cannot retaliate against its employees who oppose discrimination elsewhere. Section 2000e-3(a), the antiretaliation provision of Title VII, is broad. Thus, an employer is prohibited from:

• Retaliating against its employee if the employee testifies in an investigation/assists the EEOC in a matter against another employer.

• Retaliating against its employee because the employee files a charge against a prior employer.

• Refusing to hire or firing its employee if the employee ever made a Title VII charge against a prior employer.

• Retaliating against its employee for filing a charge with the EEOC, even if the underlying charge is incorrect or not meritorious.

Similarly, a firm using temporary employees violates Title VII if it asks the actual employer—the temporary employment agency—to fire or even just “remove” an employee from its premises because the person protested discriminatory practices or filed a charge with the EEOC concerning the employer using the temporary employee.

Employer Notes: While the result of the Flowers case is not surprising, the decision is significant. The court, in protecting Flowers, reiterated that Title VII and the courts will not condone measures that retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her rights under the statute.

Retaliation claims are increasing. Employers should not impose disciplinary action against their employees for filing charges, participating in investigations, or testifying in proceedings under Title VII, the FMLA, the ADA, or any other similar federal or state statutes, even if the activity/charge is against a different employer.

Submitted by Burton F. Boltuch, Founder, The Law Offices of Burton F. Boltuch, Oakland, Calif. You can contact Mr. Boltuch at bboltuch@workplacelaw.biz.

Reprinted from Council’s Personnel Law Update newsletter. To subscribe or order a free trial subscription,
click here.

FEEDBACK
We hope you enjoyed this month’s HR Watch. If you have any feedback or suggestions please email hrwatchinquiry@counciloned.com.

EMAIL NEWSLETTER HELP
If you would like to be removed from our newsletter mailing list, please use this link http://remove.counciloned.com.

DISCLAIMER
The articles contained in this publication have been abridged from laws, court decisions and administrative rulings and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. If you have questions concerning particular situations or specific legal issues, please contact your labor attorney.

CONTACT US
Web: www.counciloned.com
Phone: 1 800 942 4494
Fax: 1 941 373 1290
Oakhill Business Park
1338 Hundred Oaks Dr. Suite DD
Charlotte, NC 28217

© 2005 IIR California, Inc.