Must Workers Prove That Unlawful Retaliation Was The Only Reason They Were Fired?

Having litigated wrongful termination cases for more than two decades, our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida know that employees who complain about workplace discrimination are often targeted for termination. When targeting employees for termination, employers almost always come up with some pretextual reason to justify the termination. In many cases, the employer’s pretexual justification is based on some act or event involving the complaining employee that did, in fact, actually happen. Although the act or event involving the complaining employee did, in fact, actually happen, that act or event is not something for which other employees are terminated. Instead, the employer is seizing upon the act or event as a pretextual cover to get rid of an employee who complained about workplace discrimination.

A common employment law myth, our wrongful termination attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have learned, is that employees who complain about workplace discrimination do not have a meritorious retaliation claim when they are fired for an act or event that did, in fact, actually happen. In other words, many retaliation victims mistakenly believe that the proffered reason for their termination must about something that did not, in fact, actually happen in order to have a meritorious retaliation claim. An employment law myth frivolously perpetuated by employers who routinely argue that retaliation must be the only reason for an employee’s termination, and retaliation is not the only reason for an employee’s termination when the employee is fired for an act or event that did, in fact, actually happen.

In this article, our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in  Espinoza v. CGJC Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 3520662 (S.D. N.Y. July 23, 2024) shows that retaliation does not have to be the only reason for an employee’s termination, and that employees who are fired for an act or event that did, in fact, actually happen can still prove that were unlawfully retaliated against in violation of federal employment discrimination law.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In that case, a woman named Espinoza brought a retaliation claim against her former employer, CGJC Holdings, LLC (“CGJC”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and religion. To protect employees who complain about workplace discrimination, Title VII contains an anti-retaliation provision. Under Title VII, employees are protected from retaliation when they complain about perceived discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, or religion in the workplace. Espinoza alleges that CGJC violated Title VII by firing her in retaliation for complaining about perceived workplace discrimination.

Espinoza describes herself as a Latinx, LGBTQ, Spanish-speaking woman with a disability. She worked for approximately one year, from September 2019 to her firing in October 2020, as a phone server at CGJC’s restaurant. She was 19 years old when hired.

Espinoza claims that one of CGJC’s owners, Gennaro, used racial epithets in the workplace. Espinoza alleges that, in March 2020, Gennaro expressed that he was tired of working with non-English speakers and made anti-Asian comments while referring to the Covid-19 pandemic. In April 2020, according to Espinoza, Gennaro used a racial slur when referring to a Hispanic delivery driver. Espinoza further alleges that Gennaro regularly made homophobic and sexist comments. Espinoza

In May 2020, Espinoza contends that she told another owner, Ciro, that she suffered from irritable bowel syndrome and explained that she needed to sue the restroom frequently. Espinoza claims that Casey and Ciro mocked her for having irritable bowel syndrome. Espinoza further alleges that, beginning in July 2020, a bartender at the restaurant, who was also one of Espinoza’s supervisors, began to use sexist slurs in addressing Espinoza. Espinoza also maintains that the bartender used degrading, sexist language when referring to female customers.

Workplace Discrimination Complaint

Espinoza alleges that, on June 26, 2020, she complained to Ciro about Gennaro using a slur to refer to Hispanics. According to Espinoza, Ciro told her that he would speak to Gennaro about it, but Gennaro’s use of racial and homophobic slurs continued. On July 24, 2020, Espinoza claims that she complained to another owner, Piscopo, about the bartender’s behavior towards her.

On October 22, 2020, Espinoza posed on her Instagram story, “If you think about coming to eat at my job, don’t bc my manager told me he’s voting for Trump don’t give racists your money!! Two hours after Espinoza’s post, Casey called her and told her to remove the post, stating, “You should probably take that down if you want to keep your job.” Espinoza responded by referring to the allegedly racist and sexually derogatory comments made by Ciro and Gennaro. Casey, according to Espinoza, called the comments made by the other owners “irrelevant.” Espinoza removed the post after the telephone call and texted Casey a long list of comments by the other owners and told him that she had not said anything to anyone about this for fear of losing her job.

On October 23, 2020, Piscopo telephoned Espinoza. During the telephone call, Piscopo allegedly told her that Espinoza was “young and naïve” and stated that “girls [her] age don’t know any better.” Later that day, Casey called Espinoza and fired her.

Fired At Least In Part Due To Retaliation

CGJC filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Espinoza’s retaliation claim. In moving for dismissal, CGJC argued that the facts established that Espinoza was fired because of her Instagram post and not because she complained about workplace discrimination. The trial court denied CGJC’s and ruled that Espinoza’s allegations were sufficient to state a plausible retaliation claim under Title VII.

In denying CGJC’s motion for dismissal, the trial court observed that the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) ruled that an employer “cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to the challenged employment  decision” and that “so long as the [employee’s] protected activity was one but-for cause of that decision, that is enough to trigger the law.”  In other words, the trial court explained, Espinoza was retaliated against in violation of Title VII if she was terminated “at least in part” due to her complaining about perceived workplace discrimination, even if Espinoza was also terminated, in part, because of her Instagram post.  Thus, Espinoza was not required to prove that retaliation was the only reason for her termination in order to prevail to on her retaliatory discharge claim under Title VII.

Citrus County Wrongful Discharge Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida have fought for the rights of wrongful termination victims for more than twenty years. If you have been wrongfully terminated or have questions about your rights as a wrongful termination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes wrongful termination 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.