A Favorite Employer Retaliatory Tactic: Heightened Scrutiny Of Workers Who Complain About Discrimination
Having represented retaliation victims for more than twenty years, our retaliation lawyers in Citrus County, Florida have learned that a favorite retaliatory tactic of employers is subjecting employees who complain about workplace discrimination to heightened scrutiny. When utilizing this retaliatory tactic, employers will scrutinize the work performance or workplace conduct of employees to find a reason to justify terminating their employment. In watching and waiting with heightened scrutiny, employers know that the opportunity to fire employees who lodge discrimination complaints will eventually materialize.
Employers’ heightened scrutiny often begins with building a case against employees who complain about workplace discrimination. For example, employers will subject workers to disciplinary actions, negative performance evaluations, or performance improvement plans. Having created a paper trail though heightened scrutiny, employers then use the disciplinary actions, negative performance evaluations, or performance improvement plans as the pretextual justification for terminating employees. In other words, employers use heightened scrutiny to find a reason to fire employees and use that reason to cover up their true retaliatory motive for firing employees.
In this article, our retaliation lawyers in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in Hamilton v. General Electric Company, 556 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2009) demonstrates that heightened scrutiny of employees who complain about discrimination is evidence of a retaliatory termination.
Retaliatory Discharge Lawsuit
In that case, a man named Hamilton brought a retaliatory discharge lawsuit against his former employer, General Electric Company (“GE”), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment ACT (“ADEA”). The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of age. The ADEA also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for complaining about perceived age discrimination in the workplace. Hamilton claims that he was fired in retaliation for filing an age discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
Before he was fired in August 2005, Hamilton worked for GE over the course of three decades. He began working for GE in 1974, and except for a few periods when he was laid-off for non-disciplinary reason, Hamilton held a variety of positions with GE. Prior to 2004, Hamilton’s disciplinary record was relatively clean; he was disciplined only three times, twice because of conflicts with co-workers and once for having beers in his car.
In July 2004, GE terminated Hamilton’s employment because he was allegedly insubordinate and refused to follow the directions of a supervisor. After his termination, the union intervened, and Hamilton, GE, and the union signed a Last Chance Agreement in August 2004. This Last Chance Agreement gave Hamilton his job back in exchange for his agreement that he would comply with all of GE’s rules and that if he violated any, he would be subject to immediate termination.
In May 2005, Hamilton filed an age discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEO””). Hamilton testified that after filing his EEOC complaint, his supervisors greatly increased their scrutiny of his work and harassed him more than they ever had before. In the months between Hamilton’s age discrimination complaint and his final termination in August 2005, Hamilton insists that GE was scrutinizing his behavior in an effort to create reasons to discipline him. During this period, Hamilton also heard his immediate supervisor and another supervisor discussing and making light of Hamilton’s EEOC complaint.
In August 2005, GE fired Hamilton because of alleged “unacceptable conduct and behavior in the workplace.” GE claims that Hamilton “refused specific work directions from [his] supervisor, and used unacceptable foul and abusive language.”
Increased Scrutiny Is Evidence Of Retaliation
The trial court dismissed Hamilton’s retaliatory discharge claim. On appeal, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal and reinstated Hamilton’s retaliatory discharge claim.
The Sixth Circuit found that the trial court improperly “minimized the importance of the scrutiny that Hamilton alleges because the [trial court] found that from the time of the Last Chance Agreement on, GE understandably supervised Hamilton’s work carefully.” However, the court of appeals pointed out, “Hamilton does not argue that his work had not been scrutinized before, but he states that the level of scrutiny increased greatly after he filed the EEOC complaint.” “The fact that the scrutiny increased,” the appellate court explained, “is critical.” The appellate court also observed that Hamilton alleges that “GE increased its surveillance of his work after he filed an age discrimination complaint with the EEOC and then GE waited for an opportunity to fire him.” Based on these allegations, the Sixth Circuit concluded that a reasonable jury “could determine that GE waited for, and ultimately contrived, a reason to terminate Hamilton to cloak its true, retaliatory motive for firing him.”
Citrus County, FL Retaliation Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our retaliation attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have fought for the rights of retaliation victims for more than two decades. If you have been retaliated against for complaining about workplace discrimination or have questions about your rights as a retaliation victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our retaliation lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes retaliation cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.
