Employees who stand up against workplace discrimination face many challenges. One challenge they should not face – but many do – is retaliation. Employers punishing workers for standing up against discrimination or harassment is an illegal employment practice in New York. If you believe you have suffered harm because you spoke out against discrimination or harassment, you should discuss your legal options with an experienced New York retaliation lawyer.
A retaliation case from here in Manhattan illustrates what may constitute impermissible retaliation.
The employee was a general partner for a Manhattan-based real estate asset management group. During his time with the firm, the partner filed a whistleblower claim alleging that the firm fraudulently certified financial necessity to obtain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The partner also allegedly noticed a pattern in how the firm paid employees. Specifically, the partner alleged that the firm engaged in disparate treatment by paying foreign-born employees, including himself, below market wages compared to U.S.-born employees.
After the partner spoke out against this discrimination, the firm allegedly took adverse action against him, prompting him to pursue retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
As the court noted in its June 4 order denying the employer’s motion to dismiss, the NYSHRL bars an employer from retaliating against an employee for opposing a discriminatory practice or making a discrimination complaint. Similarly, the NYCHRL bans “retaliation where an employee opposed a discriminatory practice, regardless of whether the complaint was formal or informal.” Note that the employee does not necessarily have to have a winning discrimination case. So long as they had a good-faith basis for their complaint, that is enough to trigger the law’s ban against retaliation.
The Essential Elements of a Retaliation Case
To present a successful retaliation claim, an employee needs three essential things. The employee must demonstrate that (1) they “participated in a protected activity known to defendants,” (2) that the “defendants took an action that disadvantaged” the employee, and (3) the facts show a “causal connection” between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action.
Another important thing to know is the standard for analyzing the plaintiff’s allegations. The court highlighted that retaliation plaintiffs suing under the NYCHRL, just like discrimination or harassment plaintiffs under the NYCHRL, are entitled to a liberal reading of their assertions. Specifically, the law requires the courts to construe the law “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.”
In the partner’s case, he alleged that the firm engaged in discriminatory treatment of “foreign-born, visa-dependent employees.” He also alleged the existence of “disparities of pay and opportunities between himself and U.S.-born employees” doing equal or lesser work.
In response to the partner’s complaints, the firm allegedly reduced his responsibilities and eventually fired him. That was enough, when construed broadly, to meet all three elements of a retaliation claim and allow the partner to continue pursuing his case.
This case provides a powerful illustration of the nature of retaliation law in New York and how the standards for construing that law tilt in favor of employees harmed by this illegal employment practice. If you have questions about retaliation law and whether you may have a retaliation case, get in touch with the experienced New York workplace retaliation attorneys at Phillips & Associates, PLLC. Our attorneys have extensive firsthand experience handling these matters and helping employees fight for justice. To learn more about how we can help you, contact us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free and confidential consultation today.