EEOC's New Retaliation Guidelines Require Attention from Employers


Practice Areas

Pearlynn G. Houck
Robinson Bradshaw Publication
Oct. 3, 2016

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued the final version of its updated guidance on workplace retaliation. The revision – the first related to retaliation in 18 years – seeks to put EEOC guidance in line with recent case law and to respond to the greatly expanding volume of retaliation-related complaints. Since retaliation has become the most common complaint by employees (accounting for over 44 percent of all charges received by the EEOC in 2015), these revisions require a close look by employers.

The guidance addresses retaliation under each of the statutes enforced by EEOC, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Pay Act and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

While the guidance does not change the three well-established elements of a retaliation claim – participation in protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action – the EEOC leaves little doubt that it takes a broad view when defining each element. Employers should be prepared.

Participation in Protected Activity Defined

Under the new guidelines, an employee’s engagement in protected activity can be direct (i.e., an employee lodges a complaint) or indirect (i.e., an employee supports another’s complaint). The activity also may be protected even if a claim is inaccurate or untrue, as long as the employee has a reasonable good faith belief that the conduct opposed is unlawful or could become unlawful if repeated.

Scope of Materially Adverse Actions Increased

The guidance also broadens the scope of what employer activities qualify as an adverse employment action. The EEOC points out that adverse action is broader in the context of anti-retaliation than under other nondiscrimination provisions. The EEOC guidance provides that, from the retaliation standpoint, adverse action is any action that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity, even if it has no tangible effect on the individual’s employment or actually deters the employee from engaging in protected activity. It only has to have the potential to do so.

The EEOC’s guidance provides the following examples, among others, of “materially adverse” actions:

Causal Connection Loosened

The EEOC’s guidance makes clear that retaliation need only be one of the causes of the adverse action for the employee to prevail. The guidance also lowers the bar for employees by providing that the causal connection may be established by combining different pieces of circumstantial evidence into a “convincing mosaic” showing retaliatory intent. It is not necessary for an employee to point to direct evidence that the adverse employment action was due solely to the employee’s engagement in protected activity.

What Can Employers Do?

The EEOC helpfully added a section on “promising practices” that may reduce the risk of retaliation violations by employers. While not a safe harbor, employers should take note of the following list of suggestions provided by the EEOC:

More information, including the guidelines, a question-and-answer publication and a Small Business Fact Sheet, can be found on the EEOC’s website, or by contacting a member of Robinson Bradshaw’s Employment and Labor Practice Group.

Main Menu