5/2/2016

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsPart2Law360

PortfolioMedia.Inc.|860Broadway,6thFloor|NewYork,NY10003|www.law360.com
Phone:+16467837100|Fax:+16467837161|customerservice@law360.com

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliation
ClaimsPart2
Law360,NewYork(April15,2016,10:56AMET)Inpart1ofthis
twopartserieswediscussedtherecentincreaseinpost
employmentretaliationclaimsandtwoU.S.SupremeCourtcases
thathaveshapedthelegaloutlookforsuchclaims.Inpart2,we'll
addressthemanydifferenttypesofpostemploymentretaliation
claimsandpracticalstrategiesforavoidingthem.

PostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsTakeMany
Forms
WhileRobinsonv.ShellOilCompany,519U.S.337(1997),
expandedtheuniverseofindividualswhocanbringretaliation
claims,BurlingtonNorthern&SantaFeRailwayv.White,548U.S.
53(2006),expandedthetypesofclaimsthatcanbeasserted.
Sincethesecases,postemploymentretaliationclaimshave
becomemorecommonanddiverse.Formeremployeesarenow
freetoallegeretaliationbasedonawiderangeofactionsthat
extendbeyondtheiremploymentprovidedonlythatsuchactions
mighthavedissuadedareasonableworkerfromengagingin
protectedconduct.

MelissaBergmanSquire

CommunicatingWithProspectiveEmployers
JeffreyW.Rubin

Perhapsthemostcommontypeofretaliationclaimassertedinthe
postemploymentcontextstemsfromemployerscommunications
withtheirformeremployeesprospectiveemployers.See,e.g.,Smithv.St.Louis
University,109F.3d1261,1266(8thCir.1997)(holdingthatevidencethatanemployer
providednegativereferencestotheplaintiffsprospectiveemployerswassufficienttostate
aclaimforretaliationunderTitleVII)Jutev.HamiltonSundstrandCorp.,420F.3d166,
178(2dCir.2005)(holdingthatanemployersfalsestatementtoaprospectiveemployer
thathecouldnotdiscusstheplaintiffbecauseshehadalawsuitpendingwasactionable
retaliation).Infact,thiswaspreciselytheadverseconductthatformedthebasisforthe
Robinsoncase.SeeRobinson,519U.S.at339.Thereisnodenyingthatlooselipsoftenget
employersintotrouble,buteventherefusaltoprovideareferenceforaformeremployee
canformthebasisofaretaliationclaim.[1]
TheemployersallegedconductinColesv.DeltavilleBoatyardLLC,2011,at*56(E.D.Va.
2011)presentsaclassicexampleofwhatnottodo.CoreyColesfiledanEEOCcharge
againsthisformeremployer,DeltavilleBoatyardLLC,allegingthathewasdischargedon
accountofhisrace.DeltavillesubsequentlycontactedColesnewemployer,providinga
copyoftheEEOCchargeandwarningthecompanytobecarefultoavoidbecomingthe
subjectofColesnextcomplaint.Lessthanaweeklater,Coleswasdischarged.Helater
http://www.law360.com/articles/784103/print?section=corporate

1/6

5/2/2016

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsPart2Law360

learnedthatDeltavillehadfaxedacopyofhisEEOCchargetoalmosteveryboatyardinthe
area,intendingtopreventhimfromworkingforanypotentialemployerintheindustry.Not
surprisingly,Colesfiledasecondchargeofdiscrimination,assertingaclaimforretaliation.
DenyingDeltavillesmotiontodismisstheclaim,theU.S.DistrictCourtfortheEastern
DistrictofVirginiaheldthatColesallegationsweresufficienttostateaprimafaciecaseof
retaliation.Notably,thecourtrejectedDeltavillesargumentthatColeswasrequiredto
demonstratethattheallegedretaliatoryactscausedhisdischargesfromsubsequent
employersorotherwisepreventedhimfromgettingajob.Instead,tosatisfythecausation
elementofhisclaim,ColeswasonlyrequiredtodemonstratethatDeltavilletook
retaliatoryactionbecausehefiledtheEEOCchargeaneasyburdentomeetwherethe
chargeitselfwasthesubjectofeachallegedretaliatorycommunication.Inotherwords,
whetherDeltavillewassuccessfulinharmingColesfutureemploymentprospectswas
irrelevantifthatwasDeltavillesintendedresult.Accordingtothecourt,itwasreasonable
toinferthatDeltavillewasinformingeachofColesnewemployersabouttheEEOCcharge
inordertopreventColesfromobtainingemployment,andthatsuchactsconstitutedirect
retaliationforfilingtheEEOCcharge.Coles,2011,at*6.
AsimilarcasedecidedintheWesternDistrictofNewYorkhighlightsthat,unlikeina
defamationclaim,truthisnodefensetoaclaimforretaliationbasedonnegative
references.InMalev.TopsMarketsLLC,2011(W.D.N.Y.June13,2011),JulieMalesued
herformeremployer,TopsMarketsLLC,assertingthatthecompanyretaliatedagainsther
byprovidinganegativereferenceinviolationoftheFamilyandMedicalLeaveAct,the
AmericansWithDisabilitiesAct,andtheNewYorkHumanRightsLaw.
Inhercomplaint,MaleassertedthatsheengagedinprotectedactivitybytakingFMLAleave
duringheremploymentwithTopsandbyfilingcomplaintsofdiscriminationwithboththe
EEOCandincourt.Althoughsheappliedfornumerousjobsandallegedlyinterviewedwell,
MalewasunabletosecureajobfollowingherseparationfromTops.Sheclaimedthata
TopsmanagerrespondedtoacallfromaprospectiveemployerbystatingthatMalehad
personalproblemsthatspilledoverintoherprofessionallifeandthatshemissedalotof
workduetoherpersonalandmedicalissues.
TopsmovedtodismissMalesclaim,butthedistrictcourtallowedtheclaimtogoforward.
CitingtoBurlingtonNorthern,thecourtheldthatitisreasonabletoconcludethatthe
allegednegativestatementreferringtoMalesprotectedabsenceswouldnegativelyaffect
herabilitytosecureemploymentandthatthepossibilityofanemployerutteringsucha
statementwoulddiscourageanemployeefromexercisinghisorherlegalrights.Male,
2011,at*3.Furthermore,addressingthenatureofthestatementatissue,thecourtsaid
[w]hilethestatementthattheplaintifftookabsencesduetoherpersonalandmedical
issuesmayhavebeentrue,iftheplaintiffcanprovethedefendantmadesuchastatement
toaprospectiveemployerinretaliationfortheplaintiffsexercisingherrightsunderthe
FMLAortheADA,suchastatementmayviolatetheantiretaliationprovisionsoftheADA,
FMLAandNYHRL.Id.Intheretaliationcontext,itistheemployersintentandnotthe
truthwhichisofparamountimportance.
Thelessonhereissimpleemployersarebestservedbylimitingtheinformationprovided
inresponsetoreferencerequeststobasicinformation,suchastheformeremployees
position,salaryanddatesofemployment.Whilesuchpoliciesmayseemtoundercutthe
usefulnessofreferencechecks,whenconsistentlyenforced,theyareundoubtedlythebest
waytoshieldemployersfrompostemploymentliability.
FailuretoRehire
Thefailuretorehireaformeremployeewhopreviouslyengagedinprotectedconductis
alsofrequentlylitigated.Whilethepassageoftimeisoftenthebestdefenseinaretaliation
case,recentcaselawdemonstratesthatalonggapbetweenanindividualsprotected
http://www.law360.com/articles/784103/print?section=corporate

2/6

5/2/2016

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsPart2Law360

conductandhisorherapplicationforreemploymentwillnotnecessarilyprotectan
employerinthepostemploymentcontext.Forexample,inTempletonv.FirstTennessee
Bank,424F.Appx249(4thCir.2011),MargaretTempletonassertedaclaimofretaliation
basedonherformeremployersrefusaltorehirehertwoyearsaftershemadeacomplaint
ofsexualharassmentandresignedfromthecompany.
Reversingthedistrictcourtsorderdismissingherclaim,theU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe
FourthCircuitheldthatthepassageoftimecouldnotdefeatTempletonsretaliationclaim
becauseshewasretaliatedagainst,ifatall,upontheemployersfirstopportunitytodo
so,i.e.,whenTempletonexpressedherinterestinbeingrehiredapproximatelytwoyears
afterherresignation.Templeton,424F.Appx249,at*2.Similarly,evenagapof10
yearsbetweenaformeremployeescomplaintofdiscriminationandhisrequestfor
reinstatementhasbeenfoundtobeinsufficienttodefeataplaintiffspostemployment
retaliationclaim.SeeDixonv.Gonzales,481F.3d324,335(4thCir.2004)(holdingthat,
especiallyinareinstatementcase,themerelapseintimebetweentheprotectedactivity
andtheadverseemploymentactiondoesnotinevitablyforecloseafindingofcausality).
Manyemployersincludesocallednorehireclausesintheirseparationorsettlement
agreementswithformeremployeestoprotectthemselvesfrompostemployment
retaliationclaims.Suchclausesstatethattheformeremployeeagreesnottoreapplyfor
employmentwiththeemployerandacknowledgesthatthedenialofanyapplicationforre
employmentwillbeconsideredlegitimateandanappropriateexerciseoftheformer
employerscontractrights.WhiletheEEOChastakenthepositionthatnorehireclauses
areinherentlyretaliatory,courtshavenotfollowedsuit.[2]
Infact,inJencksv.ModernWoodmenofAmerica,479F.3d1261,1266(10thCir.2007),
theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheTenthCircuitheldthataformeremployeeswaiverofany
righttoreinstatementinsettlingadiscriminationcaseagainstherformeremployerwasa
legitimatenondiscriminatoryreasonforherformeremployersrefusaltoenterintoan
independentcontractorrelationshipwithher.Nevertheless,inallcases,employersshould
carefullyconsiderandthoroughlydocumentanydecisionregardingaformeremployees
requestsforrehirewheretheformeremployeepreviouslyengagedinprotectedconduct.
OpposingUnemploymentCompensationorOtherwiseTakingLegalAction
Employersareoftentemptedtoopposeunemploymentcompensationclaimsorotherwise
takelegalactionagainstformeremployeeswhopartedonlessthanhappyterms.However,
suchattemptstoeventhescoremayformthebasisforaretaliationsuitwherethe
formeremployeepreviouslyengagedinprotectedconduct.
Mostcourtshaveheldthatchallengingaformeremployeesclaimforunemployment
compensationcanconstituteretaliation,especiallywheretheoppositionisfrivolousor
basedonfalseinformation.See,e.g.,Wardv.Walmart,140F.Supp.2d1220,1231
(D.N.M.2001)(holdingthataformeremployeeofWalMartcouldproceedonhisclaimthat
thecompanyappealedhisawardofunemploymentcompensationinretaliationforhisprior
EEOCcharge).[3]Evenwhentheinformationprovidedinanunemploymentcompensation
appealistrue,anemployercanbeheldliableforretaliationifitsappealappearstobein
responsetoaformeremployeesprotectedconduct.
Thetimingofanemployerschallengeisoftencritical.Forexample,inStezziv.Citizens
BankofPennsylvania,2012,at*1(E.D.Pa.Oct.4,2012),theU.S.DistrictCourtforthe
EasternDistrictofPennsylvaniaheldthattheplaintiffstatedaprimafaciecaseof
retaliationwhereherformeremployercontestedherclaimforunemployment
compensationonlyfivedaysafterlearningthatshefiledachargeofdiscriminationagainst
thecompany.Hadtheemployermovedtoquashtheformeremployeesclaimforbenefits
immediatelyafterherdischargeandbeforeitbecameawareofhercharge,itcouldhave
avoidedaretaliationclaim.
http://www.law360.com/articles/784103/print?section=corporate

3/6

5/2/2016

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsPart2Law360

Likefrivolouschallengestounemploymentbenefitclaims,courtshaveroutinelyheldthat
filingameritlesslawsuitorcounterclaimagainstaformeremployeecanformthebasisof
aretaliationclaim.SeeEEOCv.OutbackSteakhouseofFloridaInc.,75F.Supp.2d756,
758(N.D.Ohio1999)(notingthatalawsuitmaybeusedbyanemployerasapowerful
instrumentofcoercionorretaliationandmaydissuadeindividualsfrompursuingtheir
claims)Darveauv.DeteconInc.,515F.3d334,341343(4thCir.2008)(allowingthe
plaintifftoproceedonhisclaimthathisformeremployerbroughtameritlessfraudsuit
againsthiminretaliationforhislawsuitassertingovertimecompensationundertheFLSA).
Althoughlesssettled,manycourtshavegoneastepfurther,holdingthatevenalegitimate
lawsuitorcounterclaimcansupportaretaliationclaimwherethereisevidencethatthe
formeremployeractedwithanimproper,vengefulmotive.Inotherwords,thesecourts
haveheldthat,inassessingretaliatorylitigationclaims,thefocusshouldbeonthe
employersintentwhenitassertedtheallegedlyretaliatoryclaimandnotsolelyonthe
meritsofsuchclaim.See,e.g.,Spencerv.InternationalShoppesInc.,902F.Supp.2d287
(E.D.N.Y.2012)(holdingthattherewasagenuinequestionregardingwhetherastatecourt
lawsuitbroughtagainstaformeremployeewasmotivatedbyretaliatoryanimuswithout
regardtothevalidityofthesuit).[4]
Thefactthatitwaspursuingalegitimateclaimagainstaformeremployeedidnotshieldan
accountingfirmfromliabilityforretaliationinArthurYoung&Co.v.Sutherland,631A.2d
354(D.C.Ct.Appeals1993).There,theemployertooklegalactiontoforecloseonits
formeremployeesproperty,whichservedascollateralforaloantotheemployee,after
theemployeeassertedthatthefirmdiscriminatedagainstheronaccountofhergender.
Respondingtotheformeremployeessubsequentretaliationclaim,thefirmarguedfor
summaryjudgment,assertingthatithadalegalrighttoforecloseonthepropertywhenthe
formeremployeedefaultedonherloan.Theappellatecourtupheldthedenialofsummary
judgment,notingthattheDistrictofColumbiaantiretaliationprovisionatissuecontains
nosafeharborforotherwiselawfulactsdoneforanimproperretaliatorypurpose.Arthur
Young,631A.2dat367.
CitingseveralsimilarfederalcourtopinionsinterpretingTitleVIIsantiretaliationprovision,
thecourtexplainedthatthefactthattheemployermayhaveavalidlegalclaimdoesnot
precludetheemployeefromestablishingthattheemployersmotiveinassertingtheclaim
wasimpermissibleretaliation.Id.at368.Asillustratedbythiscase,whethervalidornot,
employersshouldthinktwicebeforeassertingalegalclaimasakneejerkresponsetoa
formeremployeescomplaintorotherprotectedconduct.
OtherMateriallyAdverseActions
Inadditiontothemoretypicalclaimsdescribedabove,actionablepostemployment
retaliationcantakealmostanyformimaginable.Theunusualfactpatternunderlyingthe
courtsholdinginOramv.SoulCycleLLC,etal.,979F.Supp.2d498(S.D.N.Y.2013)
demonstratesthebreadthofretaliationclaimsandhowquicklythingscanspinoutof
controlwhentryingtosaygoodbyetoadifficultemployee.NickOram,aformerindoor
cycling(spin)instructoratSoulCycleLLCbroughtsuitagainstthecompany,asserting
variouswageandhourclaimsundertheNewYorkLaborLaw.
Afewweekslater,SoulCycleexplicitlytoldOramandhisattorneythattheywerenolonger
permittedoncompanypropertyandwouldneedtofindsomewhereelsetospin.Not
surprisingly,Oramamendedhiscomplainttoincludearetaliationclaim.Althoughit
dismissedOramsunderlyingwageandhourclaims,theU.S.DistrictCourtfortheSouthern
DistrictofNewYorkdeclinedtodismissOramsretaliationclaim.Itheldthatthelaborlaws
antiretaliationprovisionextendstoformeremployeesandthedeterminationofwhether
SoulCyclesbanonOramsattendancewoulddissuadeareasonablepersonfrommakinga
complaintwasatriableissue.
http://www.law360.com/articles/784103/print?section=corporate

4/6

5/2/2016

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsPart2Law360

Courtshavelikewiseallowedpostemploymentretaliationclaimstoproceedwherean
employer:refusedtogiveaformeremployeeherpersonnelfileandrecord,see
Balakrishanv.BoardofSupervisorsofLouisianaStateUniversity,2009(E.D.La.Jul.21,
2009)reportedaformeremployeetoanursinglicensingboard,seeMullenv.Chester
CountyHospital,2015(E.D.Pa.Apr.302015)withheldaformeremployeesfinal
paycheck,seeRojasv.GMDAirlinesServicesInc.,(D.P.R.Sept.9,2015)andterminated
aformeremployeeshealthinsurance,seeRoav.Lafe,200N.J.555(2010).Inkeeping
withBurlingtonNorthern,anynontrivialactionthatislikelytodissuadeareasonable
workerfromengaginginprotectedconductcanformthebasisofaretaliationsuit.
Althoughnotentirelywithoutteeth,thislowthresholdencompassesawiderangeofpost
employmentactions.

AvoidingPostEmploymentRetaliationClaims

Whenaccusedofwrongdoingorotherwisedealingwithadifficultemployee,itisnaturalto
feelfrustrated.Resistingtheurgetofightbackduringthecourseoftheemployees
employmentisnotenough.Employersneedtobeawarethatmanylawsprotectemployees
fromretaliationlongaftertheyleavethecompany.Evenwheninnocentlymotivated,an
adverseactionagainstaformeremployeecanneverthelesshaveacostlyoutcomeforan
employerwhohastoincursignificantcoststodefendtheclaim.Inadditiontogenerally
ensuringthatformeremployeeswhohaveengagedinprotectedconductaretreatedthe
sameasotherformeremployees,employerscantakethefollowingproactivestepsto
minimizetheriskofbeingsubjectedtopostemploymentretaliationclaims:
Establishanantiretaliationpolicy,whichprovidesexamplesofpostemployment
retaliation,andprovidenecessarytrainingtomanagers,whorepresentanemployers
biggestsourceoflitigationrisk.

Adoptaneutraljobreferencepolicylimitingtheinformationprovidedinresponseto
referencerequeststobasicbackgroundinformationsuchaspositiontitle,salaryand
datesofemployment.Referencerequestsshouldbehandledbydesignatedcompany
representatives,whoshouldrefrainfromofferingsubjectivethoughtsoropinions
aboutformeremployees.Employersshouldneverdiscloseanemployeesprotected
conduct,suchasFMLAleave,orinformationregardinganycharges,lawsuitsor
internalcomplaintsbroughtbyaformeremployeetoanyprospectiveemployerof
suchemployee.

Consideraddinganorehireclausewhensettlingdisputeswithformeremployeesto
reducetheriskoffuturelitigationstemmingfromthefailuretorehiretheemployee.

Carefullyconsiderandthoroughlydocumentanydecisionregardingaformer
employeesrequestforrehirewheretheformeremployeepreviouslyengagedin
protectedconduct.

Exercisecautionwhendecidingwhethertotakelegalactionagainstaformer
employeeoropposeaformeremployeesclaimforunemploymentcompensation
benefits,evaluatingboththemeritsandthetimingofsuchactions.

Toavoidthirdpartyretaliationclaims,donotconsideraformeremployeesprotected
conductwhenconsideringemploymentactionsconcerninganyofsuchemployees
familymembers.
ByMelissaBergmanSquireandJeffreyW.Rubin,DechertLLP

http://www.law360.com/articles/784103/print?section=corporate

5/6

5/2/2016

HowToAvoidPostEmploymentRetaliationClaimsPart2Law360

MelissaBergmanSquireisanassociateatDechertinPhiladelphia.Herpracticesfocuseson
bothlitigationandcounselinginallaspectsofemploymentlaw,includingdiscriminationand
harassment,wrongfuldischarge,familyandmedicalleave,andnoncompetition
agreements.
JeffreyRubinisanassociateatDechertinPhiladelphia.Herepresentsemployersinstate
andfederalcourtsandagenciesinemploymentandlabormattersrangingfrom
employmentdiscriminationandwageandhourdisputestononcompetitionlitigation.
Theopinionsexpressedarethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviews
ofthefirm,itsclients,orPortfolioMediaInc.,oranyofitsortheirrespectiveaffiliates.
Thisarticleisforgeneralinformationpurposesandisnotintendedtobeandshouldnotbe
takenaslegaladvice.
[1]TheEEOCsComplianceManualexpresslylistsasexamplesofpostemployment
retaliationgivinganegativejobreference,refusingtoprovideajobreference,and
informinganindividualsprospectiveemployerabouttheindividualsprotectedactivity.See
EEOCComplianceManual,Section812(5/20/98).
[2]NotethatinGoldenv.CaliforniaEmergencyPhysiciansMedicalGroup,782F.3d1083
(9thCir.2015),theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitheldthatanoemployment
provisioncontainedinasettlementagreementcouldbeanunlawfulrestraintontrade
underCaliforniaBusinessandProfessionsCodeSection16600ifthescopeoftheprovision
issufficientlybroadtoconstitutearestraintofsubstantialcharacter.
[3]Asmallminorityofcourtshaverejectedretaliationclaimsbasedonanemployers
challengetoaclaimforunemploymentbenefits,findingthatanemployerhasalegalright
anddutytochallengesuchclaims.See,e.g.,Dannnenbringv.WynnLasVegasLLC,2014,
at*5(D.Nev.Feb.7,2014)(concludingthataretaliationclaimstemmingfromaformer
employersoppositiontounemploymentbenefitswasnonsensicalbecauseemployers
havealawfulrighttochallengeunemploymentinsuranceclaimsbyformeremployees).
[4]CitingtotheU.S.SupremeCourtsdecisioninBillJohnsonsRestaurantsInc.v.NLRB,
461U.S.731(1983),somecourtshaveheldthatalawsuitfiledbyanemployeragainsta
formeremployeecanonlyberetaliatoryunderfederalemploymentstatuteswhenthe
lawsuitisbothfiledwithretaliatoryintentandlacksareasonablebasisinfactorlaw.In
BillJohnsons,theSupremeCourtheldthatawellfounded,meritoriousstatecourtlawsuit
broughtbyanemployercouldnotbeenjoinedasanunfairlaborpracticeevenifitwas
broughtwithretaliatoryintent.However,manyothercourtshaverefusedtoextendthis
standardoutsidethecontextoftheNLRA.See,e.g.,Durhamv.LifeInsuranceCo.v.Evans,
166F.3d139,157(3dCir.1999)(rejectingthedefendantsargumentthatitswellfounded
claimagainstaformeremployeeforbreachofarestrictivecovenantcouldnotsupporta
retaliationsuit)Spencerv.InternationalShoppes,Inc.,902F.Supp.2d287,296(E.D.N.Y.
2012)(concludingthattheBillJohnsonsstandardwasinapplicabletoretaliatorylitigationin
theemploymentdiscriminationcontext).
AllContent20032016,PortfolioMedia,Inc.

http://www.law360.com/articles/784103/print?section=corporate

6/6