No Recovery No Fee
(310) 935-0405

Retaliation - Title VII

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any employee or an applicant, because he/she has "opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title . . . or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.” 42 USCS § 2000e-3(a).

Employee Needs To Prove

  1. The plaintiff "engaged in activity protected under Title VII,"
  2. The "employer subjected [plaintiff] to an adverse employment decision," and
  3. There "was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer's action."  Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 506(9th Cir. 2000).

Protected Activity

A "protected activity" may include making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in proceedings or hearings under the statutes, or opposing acts made unlawful by the statute. 42 USCS § 2000e-3(a).  For example, if an employer took actions against an employee who complained, even without good cause, about unlawful discrimination, such actions would constitute unlawful retaliation.  Passantino, 212 F.3d at 506-07.

Adverse Employment Decision

Under Title VII, an "adverse employment decision" is any employer action that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee:  "[T]hat means the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."  Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 US 53, 57 (2006).

An employee may not be retaliated against if the employee opposes activity by the employer which the employee reasonably and in good faith believes to be unlawful.   An employee who honestly and reasonably believes that an employer is committing a wrong may not be terminated for trying to oppose or report that behavior.  Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass’n Inc., 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1994).

Contact Sani Law Today

If you believe your employer has treated you adversely, including wrongfully terminated you, discriminated against you, retaliated against you, or harassed you, you should Contact Sani Law today to schedule a free initial consultation. 

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any employee or an applicant, because he/she has "opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title . . . or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.” 42 USCS § 2000e-3(a).

Employee Needs To Prove

  1. The plaintiff "engaged in activity protected under Title VII,"
  2. The "employer subjected [plaintiff] to an adverse employment decision," and
  3. There "was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer's action."  Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 506(9th Cir. 2000).

Protected Activity

A "protected activity" may include making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in proceedings or hearings under the statutes, or opposing acts made unlawful by the statute. 42 USCS § 2000e-3(a).  For example, if an employer took actions against an employee who complained, even without good cause, about unlawful discrimination, such actions would constitute unlawful retaliation.  Passantino, 212 F.3d at 506-07.

Adverse Employment Decision

Under Title VII, an "adverse employment decision" is any employer action that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee:  "[T]hat means the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."  Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 US 53, 57 (2006).

An employee may not be retaliated against if the employee opposes activity by the employer which the employee reasonably and in good faith believes to be unlawful.   An employee who honestly and reasonably believes that an employer is committing a wrong may not be terminated for trying to oppose or report that behavior.  Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass’n Inc., 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1994).

Contact Sani Law Today

If you believe your employer has treated you adversely, including wrongfully terminated you, discriminated against you, retaliated against you, or harassed you, you should Contact Sani Law today to schedule a free initial consultation. 

Send Us Your Case Details
We’ll respond and let you know the best way to proceed with your case.

Practice Areas

No Recovery. No Fee.

We’ve got your back. Our experienced team will
fight for your rights and secure your future.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute a client relationship.
uploadmagnifiercrosschevron-up linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram