Jerry Maatman Quoted in Business Insurance
06/26/2006
The June 26 issue of Business Insurance notes the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling [White vs. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.] that expanded an employee's ability to sue for retaliation under federal civil rights law. The article ("High court ruling broadens definition of retaliatory acts") notes the nation's highest court upheld a lower court decision that said reassigning Ms. White to a different job and temporarily suspending her pay were retaliatory acts for her earlier complaint of sexual harassment. In doing so, the court set a national standard by defining retaliation as those employer actions that are ``harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'' It also ruled that retaliatory actions are not limited to those that affect only the terms and conditions of employment. Employment attorneys say-by setting a broader standard as to what constitutes retaliation-employers may find it more difficult to make personnel decisions about current employees who have previously voiced discrimination complaints. "The Supreme Court's ruling just made the HR manager's job even tougher,'' said Gerald Maatman, a partner with Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Chicago. "By expanding the ability of plaintiffs to sue for retaliation, the ruling requires the HR department's decision-making to be more transparent in order to steer clear of lawsuits.'' He added, "Articulating and thoroughly documenting the basis for personnel decisions impacting employees with pre-existing (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) charges is central to avoiding claims for retaliation.''
