An Analysis of the EEOC’s New Retaliation Enforcement Guidance 13:42, September 4, 2016

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Our Resources

An Analysis of the EEOC’s New Retaliation Enforcement Guidance

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues in August 2016. Retaliation occurs when an employer punishes an employee for engaging in protected activity, such as complaints of sexual harassment. Employment lawyer and blogger Eric B. Meyer summarizes the key points of retaliation in the workplace in his post “Today’s Special: Retaliation. Everything you’ve ever wanted to know.”

Because the Enforcement Guidance “analyzed how courts have interpreted and applied the law to specific facts,” the EEOC believes it is a good resource for employers “seeking promising practices.” The Enforcement Guidance has its limits, however.

The EEOC makes clear that its guidance only summarizes the law “where the Commission agrees with those interpretations,” which means that its advice does not necessarily reflect a universal application of law. For example, the EEOC (and no fewer than 128 members of Congress) urged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in an amicus curiae brief to reconsider its ruling that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination or harassment. The EEOC’s interpretations aren’t binding on courts, even though the EEOC settled a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit under Title VII.

Additionally, the EEOC focuses exclusively on retaliation in the workplace, whereas retaliation can involve other compliance issues, such as corporate fraud or misuse of government funds. This is generally known as “whistleblowing” and concerns the public welfare. This is an important distinction because whistleblowing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), for example, may require a “definite and specific” relation to SOX as opposed to an objectively reasonable belief that SOX is being violated, a distinction the EEOC does not make.

Still, the Enforcement Guidance provides good examples that can help organizations evaluate how they receive and handle complaints of workplace discrimination and harassment. These distinctions are important because employers need to understand, at a minimum, what conduct violates the law, even though compliance doesn’t stop at the law.

For more information on a company using online compliance training to help shape its culture, check out this case study on Namely.

You might also be interested in...

  • Lessons Learned on Workplace Harassment in 2016July 29, 2016 Lessons Learned on Workplace Harassment in 2016 More than 30 years after the Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, workplace harassment is alive and well. Sexual harassment and harassment based on other protected characteristics remain an unfortunate and substantial part […] Posted in ethical conduct
  • $1.95 Million for Retaliation Against Compliance ExpertsMay 5, 2017 $1.95 Million for Retaliation Against Compliance Experts The American Dental Association (Association) paid $1.95 million to resolve Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges that it fired two employees in retaliation for their complaints about violations of federal anti-discrimination laws. According to the EEOC, the […] Posted in workplace discrimination
Douglas Kelly
Douglas Kelly is EverFi's lead legal editor. He writes on corporate compliance and culture, analyzing new case law, legislation and regulations affecting US companies. Before joining EverFi, he litigated federal and state employment cases and wrote about legal trends. He earned his JD from Berkeley Law and BBA from Emory University.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

White Paper
Data Security training
for employees

  |   Download White Paper


Compliance Course Catalog
  |   Download Catalog