Earn 1,000 Book Points for every sample document (and/or template) that you sell! Help thousands of other litigants who [will] find themselves in your shoes!Sell™ Now
1. Did the charging party (CP) explicitly or implicitly communicate to the respondent (R) or another covered entity a belief that its activity constituted unlawful discrimination under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, or the EPA?
- If the protest was broad or ambiguous, would CP's protest reasonably have been interpreted as opposition to such unlawful discrimination?
Did someone closely associated with CP oppose discrimination?
2. Was the manner of opposition reasonable? manner of opposition so disruptive that it significantly interfered with R's legitimate business concerns?
- If the manner of opposition was not reasonable, CP is not protected under the anti-retaliation clauses.
3. Did CP have a reasonable and good faith belief that the opposed practice violated the antidiscrimination laws?
- If so, CP is protected against retaliation, even if s/he was mistaken about the unlawfulness of the challenged practices.
- If not, CP is not protected under the antiretaliation clauses.
B. Did CP participate in the statutory complaint process?
Did CP or someone closely associated with CP file a charge, or testify, assist, or participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or lawsuit under the statutes enforced by the EEOC?
- If so, CP is protected against retaliation regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the original allegation of discrimination.
- CP is protected against retaliation by a respondent for participating in statutory complaint proceedings even if that complaint involved a different covered entity.
Congratulations! You're now booked up on Item 0-1 of Chapter 8: Retaliation from the EEOC's Compliance Manual!
You might need to reference it during your pursuit of justice.
