Articles Posted in Retaliation

Today, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston, affirmed a judgment against a Puerto Rican hospital of nearly $2 million because it retaliated against a doctor who complained of age discrimination. The hospital terminated the doctor after he had complained that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his age. The Court affirmed the judgment because it found that various pieces of evidence cast doubt on the truthfulness of the hospital’s explanation for its decision to terminate the doctor. For instance, the hospital claimed that it terminated the doctor not because he had complained of age discrimination but because he had purchased an electrocardiography machine for his private practice and took business away from the hospital with it. However, the hospital had informed doctors who worked for it that they could purchase their own equipment for their private practices. Moreover, other doctors had purchased similar equipment for their private practices and the hospital did not terminate them.

This case illustrates that an employee who experiences retaliation or discrimination can prove it with circumstantial evidence. He does not necessarily need a witness to say that the employer admitted it was retaliating against or discriminating against him in order to prevail. If you believe your employer has illegally retaliated against you or discriminated against you, contact an experienced employment attorney who can tell you whether there is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that your employer violated your rights.

Today, the Maine Human Rights Commission found that Discovery House, a company that operates 14 for-profit methadone clinics around the country, unlawfully retaliated against former employees John Dana and Colleen Taylor for their opposition to sexual harassment in the workplace.

Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor both worked at Discovery House’s South Portland location as substance abuse counselors. During their employment at Discovery House, Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor opposed sexual harassment perpetrated by a security guard and also by a supervisor. They complained about it and counseled fellow co-workers about their rights. They also complained that Discovery House took inadequate actions to address this sexual harassment and the hostile work environment it created. On July 15, 2009 they both met with the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Discovery House. Ms. Taylor told him that she had contacted the Maine Human Rights Commission about the sexual harassment in the workplace. Mr. Dana also told him of his concerns about the sexual harassment. The company fired both Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor the very next day.

Mr. Dana worked for Discovery House a little over two years and Ms. Taylor worked there a little under two years. They had positive performance reviews and had received no other discipline. Yet, Discovery House claimed that it fired both Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor because they were “not a good fit.” It also claimed that it fired them because they displayed “constant negativity” and disrupted their business operations. The Maine Human Rights Commission found that these explanations were likely just a pretext for discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider this question next week when it hears arguments in Thompson v. North American Stainless.

According to court filings, in September 2002, Eric Thompson’s wife (who was his fiance at the time) filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against her employer, North American Stainless. Coincidentally, Mr. Thompson worked for North American Stainless too. Her complaint alleged that North American Stainless discriminated against her because of her sex. On February 13, 2003, the EEOC informed North American Stainless that Mr. Thompson’s wife had filed this sex discrimination complaint. Two weeks later, North American Stainless decided to fire Mr. Thompson even though it had given him a raise for good performance a few months earlier. Mr. Thompson then filed his own complaint with the EEOC for retaliation claiming that North American Stainless fired him merely because his wife had accused it of sex discrimination.

The EEOC found in Mr. Thompson’s favor. However, a federal court in Kentucky and, then, a divided federal appeals court in Ohio both found that the law permitted North American Stainless to retaliate against Mr. Thompson. These courts concluded that the law simply does not protect employees from retaliation when their spouses, or other people they’re closely associated with, complain about illegal discrimination.