EEOC Vs. Radio Shack
Radio Shack
An employment lawyer sees many cases of discrimination each year. Sometimes lawyers also hear cases of retaliation which stemmed from some type of allegation of discrimination. Ty Hyderally has seen many cases where retaliatory acts have followed an allegation of discrimination. Retaliation is an illegal act that occurs when an employer retaliates against an employee who opposes some form of perceived discrimination, such as informing a supervisor of a discriminatory action or filing a discrimination suit. Retaliation also occurs in some cases after an employee participates in any type of proceeding which involves discrimination such as being a witness during an investigation. According to employment law, retaliation is illegal in these types of cases. In this case, an employee was retaliated against by his supervisor and wrongfully terminated as a willful act of retaliation after he complained about being discriminated against because of his age.
David Nelson and Radio Shack
David Nelson was 55 in 2007 and had already worked for Radio Shack for over 25 years. In the fall of 2007 a new regional manager was assigned as his supervisor. Prior to the supervisor’s assignment, Nelson had a spotless performance record with the company; but just four months after his new 43-year old supervisor took the position, Nelson had been cited with two “performance improvement plans.” Nelson felt like these actions were based on age discrimination and so he complained to the human resource department. In less than five days after filing this complaint Nelson was fired by Radio Shack. When the company gave Nelson his “performance improvement plan” they also set a predetermined date for reevaluation at which time they would conduct an assessment to see if his performance showed improvement. The termination came before the expiration of the predetermined time of assessment for his performance improvement. Radio Shack’s actions appeared to be completely retaliatory in nature; judge and jury agreed.
EEOC vs. Radio Shack
The lawsuit against Radio Shack was filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Two charges were filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: age discrimination and retaliation. The court found that Radio Shack’s actions had been willful and purposeful. The Denver jury awarded $187,706 in back pay to Nelson just on the retaliation claim. The EEOC then made a motion seeking an award that would offset the extra tax burden that Nelson would incur for receiving this lump sum as a judgment. The EEOC also stated that Nelson would prefer front pay rather than reinstatement to his position in the company. Federal Court Judge Lewis T. Babcock awarded Nelson another $199,470 in front pay damages as well as additional $101,657 to offset the extra tax burden he would incur for the lump sum payment. The entire judgment ended up being $674,938.
The EEOC on Retaliation
Rita Kittle is the supervisory trail attorney for the Denver Field Office of the EEOC. She tried this case for the EEOC and stated the importance of the EEOC vigorously enforcing anti-retaliation laws as they are provided for along with employment discrimination laws. It is very important that an employee feels like they can come forward and speak out when they witness or experience a discriminatory act. Without retaliation provisions, employees would be at the mercy of their employers and not feel safe were they to oppose discriminatory actions in the workplace. The jury in this case was able to easily identify the retaliatory actions by Radio Shack and the Judge was also willing to award damages over just back pay loss. This way, Nelson would be able to continue planning for his retirement with some semblance of what he had before he was wrongfully terminated.
David Nelson and Radio Shack
David Nelson was 55 in 2007 and had already worked for Radio Shack for over 25 years. In the fall of 2007 a new regional manager was assigned as his supervisor. Prior to the supervisor’s assignment, Nelson had a spotless performance record with the company; but just four months after his new 43-year old supervisor took the position, Nelson had been cited with two “performance improvement plans.” Nelson felt like these actions were based on age discrimination and so he complained to the human resource department. In less than five days after filing this complaint Nelson was fired by Radio Shack. When the company gave Nelson his “performance improvement plan” they also set a predetermined date for reevaluation at which time they would conduct an assessment to see if his performance showed improvement. The termination came before the expiration of the predetermined time of assessment for his performance improvement. Radio Shack’s actions appeared to be completely retaliatory in nature; judge and jury agreed.
EEOC vs. Radio Shack
The lawsuit against Radio Shack was filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Two charges were filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: age discrimination and retaliation. The court found that Radio Shack’s actions had been willful and purposeful. The Denver jury awarded $187,706 in back pay to Nelson just on the retaliation claim. The EEOC then made a motion seeking an award that would offset the extra tax burden that Nelson would incur for receiving this lump sum as a judgment. The EEOC also stated that Nelson would prefer front pay rather than reinstatement to his position in the company. Federal Court Judge Lewis T. Babcock awarded Nelson another $199,470 in front pay damages as well as additional $101,657 to offset the extra tax burden he would incur for the lump sum payment. The entire judgment ended up being $674,938.
The EEOC on Retaliation
Rita Kittle is the supervisory trail attorney for the Denver Field Office of the EEOC. She tried this case for the EEOC and stated the importance of the EEOC vigorously enforcing anti-retaliation laws as they are provided for along with employment discrimination laws. It is very important that an employee feels like they can come forward and speak out when they witness or experience a discriminatory act. Without retaliation provisions, employees would be at the mercy of their employers and not feel safe were they to oppose discriminatory actions in the workplace. The jury in this case was able to easily identify the retaliatory actions by Radio Shack and the Judge was also willing to award damages over just back pay loss. This way, Nelson would be able to continue planning for his retirement with some semblance of what he had before he was wrongfully terminated.