Wal-Mart Settles EEOC Associational Retaliation Claim

Author: Beth P. Zoller, XpertHR Legal Editor

January 31, 2014

In a press release, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it has entered into a settlement with Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., L.P., d/b/a Wal-Mart stores in Albuquerque, of a claim that Wal-Mart refused to hire the son and daughter of a Wal-Mart employee because of a sex discrimination charge she had filed earlier against the retailer. The settlement of this case reminds employers that they may not retaliate against an individual who complained of discrimination or engaged in protected activity or against someone closely associated with or related to them.

Specifically, the employee claimed that two months after she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against Wal-Mart, the employee's daughter unsuccessfully applied for a position at the same store. The employee claimed that, even though her daughter received positive feedback during her interview, she was not called back for a second interview. However, at least five individuals with less schedule availability and fewer qualifications were hired. In addition, two months after that incident, the employee's son was also rejected after applying for a job at the same store. The employee claimed that Wal-Mart retaliated against her based on her earlier discrimination charge by denying employment to her two children.

In addition to a monetary settlement of $87,500, the settlement calls for:

• An injunction prohibiting Wal-Mart from engaging in retaliatory practices;
• Wal-Mart to train managerial employees about retaliation; and
• Wal-Mart to post a notice advising its employees of their rights under Title VII.

Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, noted in the press release that this case is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Thompson v. North American Stainless. In that case, the court recognized claims of associational retaliation and held that employers are prohibited from taking adverse actions against employees, their relatives or others close to them because the applicant or employee engaged in protected activity or complained of unlawful conduct in the workplace.

Further, Derick Newton, the EEOC's Albuquerque Area Director, added that retaliation continues to be a high priority for the EEOC as it is a focus of its Strategic Enforcement Plan. He also noted that the greatest number of charges filed with the agency are for retaliation.

The EEOC continues to enforce laws against employers that not only retaliate against employees who complain about discrimination and/or engage in protected activity, but also against employers that retaliate against a third party associated with the employee, such as a close family member or friend. Accordingly, employers should be proactive by training all supervisors and managers that retaliation of any kind is prohibited and ensuring there is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason before any adverse employment action is taken.