What employers can learn from EEOC's new Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation

Yesterday, the EEOC published its final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. It’s the agency’s first formal guidance on this issue since 1998, and was long overdue. After all, according to EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang, “Retaliation is asserted in nearly 45 percent of all charges we receive and is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination.” She adds, “The examples and promising practices included in the guidance are aimed at assisting all employers reduce the likelihood of retaliation.”

The lengthy guidance addresses retaliation under each of the statutes enforced by EEOC, and includes a discussion of the separate “interference” provision under the ADA, which prohibits coercion, threats, or other acts that interfere with the exercise of ADA rights.

In addition to the Enforcement Guidance, the EEOC also simultaneously published a summary Q&A and a short Small Business Fact Sheet.

The guidance offers in depth discussions of protected activities, adverse actions, and causation, and is required reading for all employers. I’d like to focus on the document’s coda, entitled, “Promising Practices”, which discusses policies, training, and organizational changes employers can implement to reduce the likelihood of retaliation.

A. Written Employer Policies

Employers should maintain a written, plain-language anti-retaliation policy, and provide practical guidance on the employer’s expectations with user-friendly examples of what to do and not to do. The policy should include:

• examples of retaliation that managers may not otherwise realize are actionable, including actions that would not be cognizable as discriminatory disparate treatment but are actionable as retaliation because they would likely deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity;
• proactive steps for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation, including practical guidance on interactions by managers and supervisors with employees who have lodged discrimination allegations against them;
• a reporting mechanism for employee concerns about retaliation, including access to a mechanism for informal resolution; and
• a clear explanation that retaliation can be subject to discipline, up to and including termination.

Employers should consider any necessary revisions to eliminate punitive formal or informal policies that may deter employees from engaging in protected activity, such as policies that would impose materially adverse actions for inquiring, disclosing, or otherwise discussing wages. Although most private employers are under no obligation to disclose or make wages public, actions that deter or punish employees with respect to pay inquiries or discussions may constitute retaliation under provisions in federal and/or state law.

B. Training

Employers should consider these ideas for training:

• Train all managers, supervisors, and employees on the employer’s written anti-retaliation policy.
• Send a message from top management that retaliation will not be tolerated, provide information on policies and procedures in several different formats, and hold periodic refresher training.
• Tailor training to address any specific deficits in EEO knowledge and behavioral standards that have arisen in that particular workplace, ensuring that employees are aware of what conduct is protected activity and providing examples on how to avoid problematic situations that have actually manifested or might be likely to do so.
• Offer explicit instruction on alternative proactive, EEO-compliant ways these situations could have been handled. In particular, managers and supervisors may benefit from scenarios and advice for ensuring that discipline and performance evaluations of employees are motivated by legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.
• Emphasize that those accused of EEO violations, and in particular managers and supervisors, should not act on feelings of revenge or retribution, although also acknowledge that those emotions may occur.
• Include training for management and human resources staff regarding how to be responsive and proactive when employees do raise concerns about potential EEO violations, including basics such as asking for clarification and additional information to ensure that the question or concern raised is fully understood, consulting as needed with superiors to address the issues raised, and following up as soon as possible with the employee who raised the concern.
• Do not limit training to those who work in offices. Provide EEO compliance and anti-retaliation training for those working in a range of workplace settings, including for example employees and supervisors in lower-wage manufacturing and service industries, manual laborers, and farm workers.
• Consider overall efforts to encourage a respectful workplace, which some social scientists have suggested may help curb retaliatory behavior.

C. Anti-Retaliation Advice and Individualized Support for Employees, Managers, and Supervisors

An automatic part of an employer’s response and investigation following EEO allegations should be to provide information to all parties and witnesses regarding the anti-retaliation policy, how to report alleged retaliation, and how to avoid engaging in it. As part of this debriefing, managers and supervisors alleged to have engaged in discrimination should be provided with guidance on how to handle any personal feelings about the allegations when carrying out management duties or interacting in the workplace.

• Provide tips for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation, as well as access to a resource individual for advice and counsel on managing the situation. This may occur as part of the standard debriefing of a manager, supervisor, or witness immediately following an allegation having been made, ensuring that those alleged to have discriminated receive prompt advice from a human resources, EEO, or other designated manager or specialist, both to air any concerns or resentments about the situation and to assist with strategies for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation going forward.

D. Proactive Follow-Up

Employers may wish to check in with employees, managers, and witnesses during the pendency of an EEO matter to inquire if there are any concerns regarding potential or perceived retaliation, and to provide guidance. This provides an opportunity to identify issues before they fester, and to reassure employees and witnesses of the employer’s commitment to protect against retaliation. It also provides an opportunity to give ongoing support and advice to those managers and supervisors who may be named in discrimination matters that are pending over a long period of time prior to reaching a final resolution.

E. Review of Employment Actions to Ensure EEO Compliance

Consider ensuring that a human resources or EEO specialist, a designated management official, in-house counsel, or other resource individual reviews proposed employment actions of consequence to ensure they are based on legitimate non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons. These reviewers should:

• require decisionmakers to identify their reasons for taking consequential actions, and ensure that necessary documentation supports the decision;
• scrutinize performance assessments to ensure they have a sound factual basis and are free from unlawful motivations, and emphasize the need for consistency to managers;
• where retaliation is found to have occurred, identify and implement any process changes that may be useful; and
• review any available data or other resources to determine if there are particular organizational components with compliance deficiencies, identify causes, and implement responsive training, oversight, or other changes to address the weaknesses identified.

While many of these tips seem like common-sense HR practices, the guidance serves a good reminder to review and, if necessary, update policies, train management and employees, and stay current with the law. While we, as employers and their advocates, tend to beat on the EEOC for its pro-employee advocacy, the proactive advice set forth in its retaliation guidance is solid and should not be ignored.