Tips from the Trenches

Recent Cases Show Managers Still Struggle with Per Se Reprisal, Inappropriate Comments

May 6, 2019 8:34:16 AM / by Julie Rook Gold, Esq.

While some comments by management regarding the EEO process or current complaints may be made with the intention of being funny, they can violate Title VII’s prohibition against reprisal. Managers should learn that comments about EEO complaints and the EEO process are not just inappropriate, they can lead to a finding of retaliation by the EEOC.


The Commission has held that "comments that, on their face, discourage an employee from participating in the EEO process are evidence of per se retaliation." Matt A. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 116 LRP 36497 (EEOC OFO 2016). This position stems from the Commission’s policy of considering reprisal claims with a broad view of coverage. Under this view, a claim of reprisal is “materially adverse” when it would deter a reasonable person from opposing discrimination or engaging in the EEO process, even if it may not state a claim under other bases of discrimination.


The EEOC has issued many decisions finding management engaged in per se reprisal just by making comments about the EEO process. In Complainant v. Dep’t of the Army, 115 LRP 38281 (EEOC OFO 2015), for example, a manager’s statement to a complainant that she should not contact the EEO office without first coming to him was per se reprisal. In another case, the EEOC found per se reprisal when a supervisor stated during a staff meeting that complaints would be met with discipline, that he kept good records, that no complaints would stick to him, and that, “if you do this, I will get you." Mindy O. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 116 LRP 39944 (EEOC OFO 2016).


Even comments that are "inadvertently" chilling can be considered per se reprisal. For instance, the EEOC considered a statement made by a LR employee to the complainant “as a friend” that her EEO complaint would polarize the office was per se reprisal. Woolf v. Dep’t of Energy, 109 LRP 53793 (EEOC OFO 2009). In another case, disclosing a complainant’s EEO activity to her coworkers as a “result of unfortunate errors” nevertheless constituted per se reprisal. Candi R. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 118 LRP 39902 (EEOC OFO 2018).


It may also constitute per se reprisal if a manager makes comments that would reasonably deter an employee from requesting a reasonable accommodation. For instance, a statement that an employee could not request a reasonable accommodation because accommodations were to help people to do their job and not to change their time on duty constituted per se reprisal. Harland B. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 116 LRP 1556 (EEOC OFO 2015).


Nevertheless, not every questionable comment constitutes per se retaliation. For example, in Ashley H. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 117 LRP 48224 (EEOC OFO 2017), the Commission found that statements, “you’re not going to file on me, are you?,” “[the] process is a length one,” and “[I've] never lost an EEO case,” did not constitute per se reprisal. The Commission emphasized that this management official also commended the complainant for exercising her right to file and standing up for what she believed in. The EEOC has also held that a supervisor’s mere acknowledgment that a grievance was filed after the supervisor removed some of the complainant’s duties was not per se reprisal. Rhonda H. v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 119 LRP 2962 (EEOC OFO 2018).


It can be difficult for managers to navigate the appropriate response to employees participating in the EEO process, opposing discrimination, or requesting reasonable accommodations. Even passing comments can be determined to be per se reprisal by the EEOC. Thus, to avoid liability under Title VII, supervisors must ensure that their comments are not intended to or reasonably interpreted to be deterring EEO activity.

Topics: federal hr & eeo law training, per se reprisal

Julie Rook Gold, Esq.

Written by Julie Rook Gold, Esq.

is counsel and associate attorney with Gilbert Employment Law and litigates all phases of federal sector employment discrimination complaints before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and appeals of disciplinary actions and whistleblower retaliation claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board. These complaints and appeals include claims of disability discrimination, removals, non-selections, religious discrimination, retaliation, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and age discrimination. Ms. Gold prepares cases for administrative hearings before the EEOC and MSPB by drafting and responding to written discovery, conducting and defending depositions, and preparing witnesses for deposition. She represents the USDA Forest Service and USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, and complainants and appellants at administrative hearings and examines and cross-examines witnesses during these hearings. Ms. Gold prepares settlement analyses in both EEOC and MSPB cases, participates in discussions with clients concerning legal analysis and resolution, negotiates settlement terms, drafts settlement agreements, and represents clients at settlement conferences. She served as the lead attorney on a contract with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and conducted legal sufficiency review of Final Agency Decisions issued by the FEC.


1-800-727-1227   |   |    561-622-2423

© 2019 LRP Publications, LLC | Produced by cyberFEDS® and Gilbert Training Group