Retaliation for Prior EEO ActivityThe Commission reversed the final agency decision, noting that one month before her reassignment summary judgment was granted in her prior EEO case. The EEOC found that there was no evidence the EEO claim brought against the complainant was a hostile work environment claim and only involved a one-time incident concerning an audit conducted about nine months prior to her reassignment. The Commission also found that there were conflicting reasons given for the temporary reassignment as her direct supervisor claimed that it was due to the complainant’s performance: "We find that the agency’s witnesses are conflicting and not credible. Therefore, we find that the agency’s articulated reason is merely a pretext for retaliatory animus." It should be noted that a claim of reprisal will be found to be a violation if an employer retaliates against an employee for engaging in protected activity through threats, harassment in or out of the workplace, or any other adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to deter protected activity by that individual or other employees. See the EEOC Compliance Manual on Retaliation, No. 915.003 at 814 through 816. It is irrelevant whether the wrong would rise to the level resulting in an award of damages as retaliation is an illegal act of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended. As relief, the Commission ordered the agency to retroactively reassign the complainant to her manager of injury compensation position, awarded back pay with benefits and interest, and remanded the case for a supplemental investigation of compensatory damages. * This information is provided by the attorneys at Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to the representation of federal employees worldwide. For more information on Passman & Kaplan, P.C., go to http://www.passmanandkaplan.com. |




