Assertion: retaliation's employer | /r/CapableOf | retaliate against employee
Facets:
value: for invoking that right
type: PURPOSE
value: for any reason
type: CAUSE
value: of taking the harassment claim
type: OTHER
value: in some manner
type: MANNER
value: in response
type: OTHER
value: often
type: TEMPORAL
value: for reporting illegal activities
type: CAUSE
value: in a variety of ways
type: MANNER
value: for being
type: CAUSE
value: for filing
type: PURPOSE
value: for participating in an investigation
type: CAUSE
value: for opposing any practice
type: CAUSE
value: in violation of this statute
type: OTHER
value: effectively
type: MANNER
value: under any of the following circumstances
type: OTHER
value: by firing that employee
type: MANNER
value: for bringing a qui tam suit
type: PURPOSE
value: by taking actions
type: MANNER
value: because of belief
type: CAUSE
value: illegally
type: MANNER
Source sentences:
text: employer that retaliates against [an] employee because of [the] employer’s suspicion or belief that the employee filed an OSHA complaint has [] surely committed a violation . . . to protect employees from adverse employment actions because they are suspected of having engaged in protected activity is consistent with the general purposes of the Act and the specific purposes of the anti-retaliation provisions.
text: The employer failed to provide light duty, refused to permit the employee to take medical leave and retaliated against the employee for filing a workers' compensation claim by terminating employment.
text: An employer may retaliate against an employer in the form of criminal activity such as vandalism, assault, or theft.
text: Then the employer turns around and retaliates against that employee by, for example, firing them, reducing their pay, denying them a promotion.
text: An employer illegally retaliates against an employee by taking an adverse action against the employee for reporting or complaining about (called “protected activity”) what the employee believes to be discrimination or harassment in the workplace.
text: Prohibiting only employment-related actions would not achieve the goal of avoiding retaliation because “an employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking actions not directly related to his employment or by causing him harm outside the workplace.
text: An employer retaliates against an employee when it takes action to punish the employee for exercising his or her workplace rights or for reporting a legal violation of workplace laws.
text: It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee who exercises a right under the law.
text: An example of preemptive retaliation is where an employer fires or otherwise retaliates against an employee based on the employer’s expectation that the employee will provide adverse testimony in a proceeding.
text: Here are some common examples of when an employer might retaliate against an employee who merely want to assert his/her rights: Requesting reasonable accommodations for a disability or religious practices Requesting a portion of tips earned Exercising sick leave rights, or taking time off to vote or serve on a jury Refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory Participating in an official investigation –
text: It is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because they have exercised a legal right or duty; or objected to do something illegal.
text: If an employer retaliates against an employee, the employee can file a wrongful termination lawsuit and recoup compensation for damages.
text: Similarly, if an employer retaliates against an employee who asks for a reasonable accommodation, it is no defense for the employer if the employee does not prove that he or she is an individual with a disability.
text: If an employer then retaliates against an employee for bringing a qui tam suit, the employee has the right to sue for qui tam whistleblower retaliation.
text: That is, a common misconception about workplace retaliation that many have is that an employer can only retaliate against an employee by firing that employee.
text: While it is true that termination or firing is one form of retaliation, it is by no means the only method whereby an employer can retaliate against an employee.
text: An employer who retaliates against an employee under any of the following circumstances may face legal consequences:
text: They contain whistleblower (anti-retaliation) provisions that generally provide that employers may not discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee because the employee has filed a complaint or exercised any other rights provided to employees by the statute.
text: Wrongful termination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA") occurs when an employer fires or otherwise retaliates against an employee who:
text: So, for example, because an Illinois statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: So, for example, because a Virginia statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: So, for example, because a Kentucky statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: Employer cannot interfere with or retaliate against an employee who seeks the benefits of FMLA or NJFLA leave.
text: Other: Employer retaliates against an employee who participates in an investigation into any of the above.
text: Under federal and Texas law, an employer may not discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee for, among other reasons:
text: So, for example, because a Pennsylvania statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: So, for example, because a New Mexico statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: And in the unlikely event that an employer actually discriminates or retaliates against an employee in violation of this statute, the remedies provided by the law may take time and aggravation to obtain.
text: So, for example, because an Idaho statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would likely be contravening public policy.
text: So, for example, because an Ohio statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: So, for example, because a Connecticut statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: So, for example, because a Colorado statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: The anti-retaliation provisions of the federal and Florida employment discrimination laws make it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for opposing any practice made unlawful under the employment discrimination statutes.
text: The anti-retaliation provisions of the federal and Florida employment discrimination laws make it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the employment discrimination statutes.
text: So, for example, because a Maryland statute endorses an employee's right to collect workers' compensation benefits, an employer who retaliates against an employee for invoking that right would be contravening public policy.
text: It is unlawful for employers to retaliate against applicants or employees for: filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
text: Employers can retaliate against employees in a variety of ways.
text: “applies to employers who retaliate against employees whom they believe intend to file workplace safety complaints.
text: The court reasoned that “firing workers who are suspected of planning to file workplace safety complaints [could] effectively discourage the filing of those complaints” and “allowing such preemptive retaliation would be at odds with section 6310’s apparent intent-to encourage such complaints and to punish employers who retaliate against employees as a result . . .
text: According to Lujan, “[t]o hold otherwise would create a perverse incentive for employers to retaliate against employees who they fear are about to file workplace safety complaints before the employees can do so, therefore avoiding liability under section 6310.
text: Under federal law, it is illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for reporting illegal activities, complaining about discrimination or participating in an investigation or hearing regarding a discrimination complaint.
text: Some people think that employers can’t retaliate against employees for any reason – that’s not true.
text: Often, though, employers retaliate against employees who make these types of claims, up to and including firing the employee who filed the claim.
text: Federal and state employment laws recognize that employers are in a position of power and can retaliate against those employees who complain.
text: When an employer takes a negative action against an employee for making a report of sexual harassment, the employer has retaliated against the employee.
text: In response, instead of taking the harassment claim seriously and investigating to prove it lacks merit, the employer retaliates against the employee in some manner.