Workplace Culture

More on Retaliation for Firing After Complaints of Third-Party Discrimination

By Staff Report

Mar. 27, 2013

Yesterday’s post on #Donglegate—the firing of Adria Richards after she tweeted her displeasure at the off-color jokes told by a pair of fellow attendees at an industry conference—created quite the debate.

On Twitter, Chris McKinney argued that I confused the questions.

Meanwhile, blog reader Kent Mannis commented that the employer should be liable because Richards was “opposing” unlawful harassment:

Richards’ employer isn’t potentially liable for what the conference attendees did, but it may be liable for what it did (e.g., retaliate against her for her complaint)…. So, does she lose protection for using social shaming as a way of opposing another harassing drip? We want employees to try (if they can) to say “stop that” to their harassers before suing; we want them to stand up for themselves. Isn’t that what Richards did? Wasn’t she protected for “opposing”?

Despite the criticism, I do not believe that my opinion that Richards’ termination is lawful is off-base. For Title VII to protect her complaints as opposition conduct, she must have a reasonable belief that she is complaining about something unlawful. Yet, Title VII does not protect an employee from a hostile work environment created by a non-employee unless the employer can exert some reasonable degree of control over the non-employee. If Richards’ employer cannot control the people about whom she was complaining, why should Title VII protect the complaints at all?

Additionally, recall that “venting” does not qualify as “opposition” under Title VII. There is a good argument to be made that Richards was not complaining about harassment or discrimination, but merely blowing off steam about the boorish behavior of some follow conference goers.

Moreover, even if Title VII protects Richards’ online venting as “opposition,” it is doubtful she will be able to establish a nexus between her comments and the termination. Her employer did not terminate her because of the contents of her tweet, but because of the very public nature of her complaints. Had she raised the issue privately with her employer, it is fair to assume that she’s still be employed and we would not be having this healthy debate.

What do you think about Richards’s termination? Eric Meyer wants you to answer a short, one-question poll and let him know whether you think her firing was fair. I can’t wait to read the results.

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

About Workforce.com

blog workforce

We build robust scheduling & attendance software for businesses with 500+ frontline workers. With custom BI reporting and demand-driven scheduling, we help our customers reduce labor spend and increase profitability across their business. It's as simple as that.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Workplace Culture

5 lunch break statistics that shed light on American work culture

Summary Research shows how taking lunch breaks enhances employee engagement and productivity. Despite t...

lunch breaks, scheduling, statistics

workforce blog

Workplace Culture

6 Things Leadership can do to Prevent Nurse Burnout

Summary Nurse burnout is a serious issue in the healthcare business and has several negative consequenc...

burnout, Healthcare, hospitals, nurses

workforce blog

Workplace Culture

5 tips to reduce employee no call, no shows

Summary No call, no shows are damaging to businesses. High no call, no show rates could suggest problem...

absence, attendance, no call, no shows, time