Labor & Employment Law

EMPLOYMENT RETALIATION A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION

By Michael Goldstein, Esq.

Pursuant to Massachusetts?s employment law, an employer can be liable under the discrimination statute even if they don?t necessarily discriminate against a protected class of individuals. Rather, an employer can discriminate against a person who is simply attempting to conduct some activity protected by the law. If an adverse action is taken as a result of an employee conducing a protected activity the law recognizes this a form of discrimination call retaliation.Retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in legally protected conduct; she suffered an adverse employment action; and a causal connection existed between the protected conduct and the adverse action. To succeed on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must prove that she reasonably and in good faith believed that his employer engaged in wrongful discrimination, that she acted reasonably in response to this belief, and that the employer’s desire to retaliate against her was a determinative factor in the decision to take an adverse employment action.

For reasons of public policy, an at-will employee may maintain a cause of action and find redress where the termination results from the employee’s assertion of some legally guaranteed right, or for refusing to engage in illegal or harmful conduct. Parker v. Town of North Brookfield, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 235 (2007). Public Policy was violated where employee was discharged in retaliation for good-faith internal complaint about practices violating UL standards bearing directly on public safety. Falcon v. Leger, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 352, 365 (2004).

Redress is available for employees who are terminated for asserting a legally guaranteed right for refusing to do that which the law forbids (e.g., committing perjury). Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 149, 150 (1989). An employee’s good faith internal complaint of employer’s violation of criminal law need not have been reported to public authorities in order to succeed under public policy exception. Shea v. Emmanuel College, 425 Mass. 763 (1997). An at-will employee who ?blew the whistle? within his company on wrongdoing is entitled to protection even though before discharge he did not complain to public authorities. Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 560 (1988). An employee could be shielded from the risk of discharge if he or she reasonably, but perhaps erroneously, reports that an employer is violating State and municipal laws and ordinances concerning public safety. Id.

Full post as published by Massachusetts Employment Law Blog on March 05, 2008 (boomark / email).