An Emerging Employer Retaliatory Tactic: Excluding Complaining Employees From Meetings

Having represented retaliation victims for more than twenty years, our employment lawyers in Citrus County, Florida know that not all retaliation cases involve an ultimate employment decision that inflicts direct economic harm against employees, such as a reduction in pay, demotion, failure to promote, or termination. In many retaliation cases, our Citrus County, Florida employment lawyers have learned, employees endure retaliation through employment actions that punish them for complaining about workplace discrimination. For example, employees who exercise their employee rights are denied work related assistance, given a more significant workload, required to perform less favorable job duties, or isolated in the workplace.

One employer retaliatory tactic occurring with increasing frequency is excluding employees from meetings. Although excluding employees from meetings can adversely affect an employee’s work performance, opportunity for advancement, and even continued employment, employers invariably argue that excluding employees from meetings is nothing more than a trivial minor annoyance and, thus, is not a form of retaliation prohibited by federal employment discrimination law. In other words, employers maintain they are lawfully entitled to retaliate against employees who complaint about workplace discrimination by excluding them from meetings.

In this article, our employment lawyers in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in Schoenadel v. YouGov America, Inc., 2025 WL 371089 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 3, 2025) demonstrates that excluding employees from meetings because they complained about workplace discrimination is a form of retaliation prohibited by federal employment discrimination law.

Retaliation Lawsuit

In that case, a woman named Schoenadel brought a retaliation claim against her former employer YouGov America, Inc. (“YGA”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex. In order to facilitate the eradication of sex discrimination and protect sex discrimination victims, Title VII contains an anti-retaliation provision. Under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, employers are forbidden from retaliating against employees because they complained about perceived sex discrimination in the workplace. Schoenadel claims that she was retaliated against in violation of Title VII.

In 2015, Schoenadel began working for YGA. In December 2021, Schoenadel filed a sex discrimination complaint with human resources. The parties dispute what Schoenadel’s relationship with YGA leadership was like after she filed her complaint. Schoenadel says that she had weekly meetings with YGA leadership until her supervisor “started cancelling the meetings” after Schoenadel filed her sex discrimination complaint. Meanwhile, Schoenadel’s supervisor testified that he “barely had any meetings” with Schoenadel to begin with and “never had any independent weekly meetings” with her. Schoenadel alleges that her exclusion from senior leadership meetings “escalated” in late 2021 and early 2022.

In March 2022, after what Schoenadel characterizes as months of being iced out, she resigned from YGA. The human resources investigation was still ongoing at the time of Schoenadel’s resignation. In July 2022, YGA informed Schoenadel that it had concluded its investigation and that it did not substantiate Schoenadel’s allegations of sex discrimination.

Not A Trivial Minor Annoyance

YGA filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Schoenadel’s retaliation claim. In seeking dismissal of Schoenadel’s retaliation claim, YGA argued that excluding Schoenadel from meetings was not a form of retaliation prohibited by Title VII. The trial court disagreed and ruled that Schoenadel was entitled to proceed to a jury trial on her retaliation claim.

At the outset of its opinion, the trial court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court in Burlington N. & Santa Fe. Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) defined an unlawful retaliatory action as any action that “could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” In other words, according to the Supreme Court, if the claimed retaliatory act would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a complaint of workplace discrimination, then the retaliatory act constitutes an unlawful retaliatory act forbidden by Title VII.

In applying this principle, the trial court observed that Schoenadel alleges that after she filed her workplace discrimination complaint, she was “not invited to leadership meetings that should have included her,” that “senior leaders would not email or call her,” and when she “requested information,” she “was ignored.” The trial court concluded that “a reasonable juror might find that [YGA’s] actions, collectively, could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” In support of its conclusion, the trial court observed that the Burlington Court ruled that “a supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial,” but to “retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.”

Citrus County, FL Employment Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our employment attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have fought for the rights of employment discrimination victims for more than two decades. If you have experienced workplace discrimination or have questions about your rights as an employment discrimination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our employment lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes employment discrimination 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.