EEOC Vs. Cognis Corporation
Cognis Corporation
Ty Hyderally is an employment lawyer who has many years of successful litigation in discrimination cases as well as in cases where retaliation has occurred. It is advisable to discuss the details of a discrimination or retaliation case with a knowledgeable lawyer who can help bring understanding of protected activities and covered individuals. An employer is prohibited by law from retaliating against an employee for opposing any type of discriminatory actions in the workplace; or from participating in any activities or proceedings which involve employment discrimination. This means that an individual is protected against retaliation if they report an act of discrimination which occurred in the workplace, whether it was to them or someone else, as well as if they serve as a witness in any type of proceedings or investigations of alleged discrimination. In this case, the Cognis Corporation retaliated against employees who were being “forced” to make a choice between doing something illegal or losing their civil rights.
Background on the Retaliation Case
In 2010 BASF Corporation, which is a multinational chemical company, acquired Cognis Corporation. In the transaction, approximately 16,000 employees were acquired and among them were some long time employees. The employee alleged that once he became an employee of Cognis he was given as a condition of his employment a requirement which included signing a “last chance agreement.” The agreement stated that the employee would be prohibited from filing any types of discrimination charges with the EEOC. It was stated such that the employee was not allowed to ever file a claim for discrimination – even one that might happen in the future and had not even yet occurred. The employee informed supervisory staff at Cognis that this “agreement” was a violation of his civil rights. Cognis then terminated him.
The EEOC files Retaliation Suit
The EEOC brought the suit against the Cognis Corporation in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois only after they had first attempted to resolve the case through the conciliation process. In May 2012, the judge concurred that the termination did constitute an unlawful case of retaliation which did indeed violate Title VII. After the judge determined that it was a retaliatory act, all that was left to decide was to what extent the employee was damaged.
The EEOC’s suit included five other employees who were forced to make a very similar, but illegal choice. These employees did sign the “last chance agreement” which totally stripped them of their right to file any sort of discrimination charges for any “future” discriminatory actions that might occur. They chose signing the agreement over being terminated from their job. BASF settled the lawsuit and one stipulation was that the company could not continue defending itself against the allegations being made.
Case Resolved
The judge resolved the suit in January 2013 by entering a consent decree. The decree will provide monetary relief to the affected victims. BASF is required to report any retaliation complaints to the EEOC for two years. They must also create new policies which inform employees of their right to opposing unlawful discrimination without having to fear retaliation. The company will also be required to train a group of employees on the different types of retaliation that are prohibited under federal employment and discrimination laws. BASF also had to agree that they would not require those who received monetary relief to keep their allegations confidential. They were allowed to speak freely about the allegations as well as the underlying facts. The victims were not to be prohibited from reapplying to work for the company should they desire to do so.
Background on the Retaliation Case
In 2010 BASF Corporation, which is a multinational chemical company, acquired Cognis Corporation. In the transaction, approximately 16,000 employees were acquired and among them were some long time employees. The employee alleged that once he became an employee of Cognis he was given as a condition of his employment a requirement which included signing a “last chance agreement.” The agreement stated that the employee would be prohibited from filing any types of discrimination charges with the EEOC. It was stated such that the employee was not allowed to ever file a claim for discrimination – even one that might happen in the future and had not even yet occurred. The employee informed supervisory staff at Cognis that this “agreement” was a violation of his civil rights. Cognis then terminated him.
The EEOC files Retaliation Suit
The EEOC brought the suit against the Cognis Corporation in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois only after they had first attempted to resolve the case through the conciliation process. In May 2012, the judge concurred that the termination did constitute an unlawful case of retaliation which did indeed violate Title VII. After the judge determined that it was a retaliatory act, all that was left to decide was to what extent the employee was damaged.
The EEOC’s suit included five other employees who were forced to make a very similar, but illegal choice. These employees did sign the “last chance agreement” which totally stripped them of their right to file any sort of discrimination charges for any “future” discriminatory actions that might occur. They chose signing the agreement over being terminated from their job. BASF settled the lawsuit and one stipulation was that the company could not continue defending itself against the allegations being made.
Case Resolved
The judge resolved the suit in January 2013 by entering a consent decree. The decree will provide monetary relief to the affected victims. BASF is required to report any retaliation complaints to the EEOC for two years. They must also create new policies which inform employees of their right to opposing unlawful discrimination without having to fear retaliation. The company will also be required to train a group of employees on the different types of retaliation that are prohibited under federal employment and discrimination laws. BASF also had to agree that they would not require those who received monetary relief to keep their allegations confidential. They were allowed to speak freely about the allegations as well as the underlying facts. The victims were not to be prohibited from reapplying to work for the company should they desire to do so.