Niswander Vs. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Cincinnati Insurance Company
Employment law is complicated which is precisely why Tayeb Hyderally chose to pursue this field of practice. Employment lawyers such as Hyderally understand how the laws work to protect employees and help maintain a safe workplace. When those rights are violated, and the employee takes a proper course of action, they are also protected from retaliation from the employer. However, in many cases retaliation does occur when discriminatory practices are reported or complaints are filed. When retaliation occurs employment lawyers spring into action on behalf of their clients to see that they receive proper treatment. Sometimes, like in this particular case, there are other facts that tend to complicate the procedures even further.
Niswander vs. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Niswander was working for the Cincinnati Insurance company when she joined a class action suit which was launched against the employer. The class action suit alleged that there had been cases of sexual discrimination. Employees also stated that the Equal Pay Act had been violated. The attorneys for the class action suit wrote letters to the participants requesting that they send any pertinent documents which might support their claims of discrimination. Niswander worked from her home as a claims representative so she gathered up all the documents she felt were applicable and sent them to the attorneys overseeing the class action case. The documents that she sent included communications that she had had with her supervisors concerning her job performance, but they also contained personal and sensitive information about the policy holders with the insurance company. Once the attorneys presented the documents in response to the defense’s discovery request, Niswander was fired because she violated the confidentiality policy of the company. She then sued stating that they she was terminated as an act of retaliation for participating in the class action law suit. When the lower court dismissed the case, Niswander appealed.
Niswander’s Appeal
When Niswander appealed her case of retaliation, the Sixth Circuit analyzed the circumstances in which the violation of company policy occurred. In this case, the court found that she was not engaging in a protected activity by providing the employment lawyers with confidential company materials. The court determined that the documents did not support the claims that were pending in the class action suit and she even admitted that she did not think they were supportive. Niswander did claim that she felt the documents supported her retaliation complaint that she was retaliated against since she had joined the class action suit. But that claim had not been stated prior to producing the documents, it was unrelated to the claim and it was not protected by participation.
Complicated Cases
The courts recognized competing interests. The employer had a legitimate need and responsibility to protect their client’s confidential information and the employee needed to be protected against retaliation. However, unlike participatory action, oppositional conduct has to be reasonable. The courts looked at several factors before making their decision. The considered how the documents were obtained, who received the documents, what information was in the documents, why those documents were used, the employer’s privacy policies and how the employee could have preserved the evidence in a way that would not violate the privacy policies of the employer. Once they considered all these factors they determined that Niswander could have used alternative methods for proving retaliatory actions. The court determined that her actions did not qualify to be protected from retaliation. The employer was released from their liability in this case. She could have done a couple of other things that would have served her retaliation case better. Had she removed some of the sensitive documents or if she had already asserted her claim of retaliation prior to submitting them she may have won this case.
Niswander vs. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Niswander was working for the Cincinnati Insurance company when she joined a class action suit which was launched against the employer. The class action suit alleged that there had been cases of sexual discrimination. Employees also stated that the Equal Pay Act had been violated. The attorneys for the class action suit wrote letters to the participants requesting that they send any pertinent documents which might support their claims of discrimination. Niswander worked from her home as a claims representative so she gathered up all the documents she felt were applicable and sent them to the attorneys overseeing the class action case. The documents that she sent included communications that she had had with her supervisors concerning her job performance, but they also contained personal and sensitive information about the policy holders with the insurance company. Once the attorneys presented the documents in response to the defense’s discovery request, Niswander was fired because she violated the confidentiality policy of the company. She then sued stating that they she was terminated as an act of retaliation for participating in the class action law suit. When the lower court dismissed the case, Niswander appealed.
Niswander’s Appeal
When Niswander appealed her case of retaliation, the Sixth Circuit analyzed the circumstances in which the violation of company policy occurred. In this case, the court found that she was not engaging in a protected activity by providing the employment lawyers with confidential company materials. The court determined that the documents did not support the claims that were pending in the class action suit and she even admitted that she did not think they were supportive. Niswander did claim that she felt the documents supported her retaliation complaint that she was retaliated against since she had joined the class action suit. But that claim had not been stated prior to producing the documents, it was unrelated to the claim and it was not protected by participation.
Complicated Cases
The courts recognized competing interests. The employer had a legitimate need and responsibility to protect their client’s confidential information and the employee needed to be protected against retaliation. However, unlike participatory action, oppositional conduct has to be reasonable. The courts looked at several factors before making their decision. The considered how the documents were obtained, who received the documents, what information was in the documents, why those documents were used, the employer’s privacy policies and how the employee could have preserved the evidence in a way that would not violate the privacy policies of the employer. Once they considered all these factors they determined that Niswander could have used alternative methods for proving retaliatory actions. The court determined that her actions did not qualify to be protected from retaliation. The employer was released from their liability in this case. She could have done a couple of other things that would have served her retaliation case better. Had she removed some of the sensitive documents or if she had already asserted her claim of retaliation prior to submitting them she may have won this case.