An Employee Spoke Out on Glassdoor.com, and Now the EEOC Is Suing His Company
The EEOC on Wednesday sued IXL Learning Inc. over claims the company violated federal law and retaliated against a transgender employee who'd posted anti-discrimination comments on the job recruiting website Glassdoor.com. The case could serve as the latest example showing how companies and courts are grappling with protections for employees as technology platforms evolve.
May 25, 2017 at 02:36 PM
5 minute read
Not long after Adrian Scott Duane posted a comment on Glassdoor.com that said his company's managers “do not know what the word 'discrimination' means, nor do they think it matters,” the 32-year-old transgender worker's desk had been cleared and he was fired from a Silicon Valley-based education technology company.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Wednesday filed suit in California against IXL Learning Inc. on behalf of Duane claiming the company violated federal law and that the dismissal was retaliation for the comments Duane posted on Glassdoor, the job recruiting website.
“While the platforms for employees to speak out against discrimination are evolving with technology, the laws against retaliation remain constant,” said EEOC trial attorney Ami Sanghvi. “The main reason to litigate is to send a strong message that we will protect workers that engage in activities, not just through traditional avenues.”
The case may serve as the latest example showing how companies and courts are grappling with protections for employees as technology platforms evolve.
“I would expect to see an uptick in these cases given the way workers communicate are changing,” Sanghvi told The National Law Journal. “The way employees communicate internally and externally and the way people organize is changing. The platforms they are using to speak out change every day. But the law remains the same.”
Duane filed a civil lawsuit in a California federal court against IXL earlier this year. A judge's ruling on May 12 on procedural issues has kept the case pending. Previously, a San Francisco-based National Labor Relations Board judge sided with the company in the case. The claims there, mirroring those in the EEOC's suit, were dismissed.
Jeff Wilson of Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, who represents IXL, called the EEOC lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, “a disappointing overreach by a federal agency based upon disproven allegations.”
The dispute began in 2014. Duane, who had worked for the company since 2013, had a conflict with his supervisor over the ability to work flexible hours after he returned from having a phalloplasty surgery, a female to male reassignment procedure, and claims he was discriminated against by his colleagues and management for his identity on multiple occasions.
Duane posted a comment on Glassdoor.com in December 2014 after he said his supervisor refused to accommodate a scheduling request. Duane's anonymous review said in part: “If you're not a family-oriented white or Asian straight or mainstream gay person with 1.7 kids who really likes softball—then you're likely to find yourself on the outside … Most management do not know what the word 'discrimination' means, nor do they seem to think it matters.”
According to court documents, Paul Mishkin, the company's chief executive officer, confronted Duane with a print-out of the Glassdoor review during a meeting about his complaints about discrimination. Mishkin then terminated him, saying the post showed poor judgment and ethical values. Security had already cleared out his desk and personal effects.
The EEOC alleged IXL violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which say it is illegal for an employer to fire an employee for opposing discrimination, even when that activity is public. The EEOC's lawsuit seeks lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.
Mishkin said in a statement that it has already been determined that Duane did not experience discrimination at the company as a result of his gender identity. He said neither he nor Duane's managers were aware he was transgender and his identity was not a factor in his termination. He added that he was granted requests for time off or modified work schedules.
“I abhor the particularly overt and cruel marginalization that transgendered people face in society, and I strive, to the best of my ability, to ensure that IXL is a company that welcomes all individuals equally regardless of gender identity,” Mishkin said.
The National Labor Relations Board previously took up Duane's claims. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham called Duane's post on Glassdoor.com “a tantrum” and “childish ridicule” of his employer. The judge said the claim of discrimination was unsupported and he did not believe the post was meant to be part of a concerted or group action among his fellow employees at the company.
“Here, Duane's posting on Glassdoor.com was not a social media posting like Facebook or Twitter,” Etchingham wrote his decision. “Instead, Glassdoor.com is a website used by respondent and prospective employees as a key recruiting tool to recruit prospective employees.”
Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane's website touts the NLRB win for IXL. The firm describes the labor agency's decision as “an important development in the NLRB's continued attempt to apply the act's concerned activity protections to employee use of social media and other online venues.”
David Marek of the Marek Law Firm, who represents Duane, said his client was pleased the EEOC took up the case. “I'm guessing these cases will become more and more common,” Marek said. “I would hope that employees are given protections on those platforms as they are given on other platforms.”
Copyright National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAnticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute readJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Discussing Politics at Work This Election Day? Some Considerations for Employers
7 minute readMen Are Worried, but EEOC Panel Finds Little Evidence to Support #MeToo Backlash Fears
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Matt's Corner: Contributory Negligence Can Be a Bar to Legal Malpractice Recovery
- 2Meet The New Judge: Rockdale County State Court Jurist Aims for Efficiency and Integrity
- 3People in the News—Dec. 3, 2024—Stradley Ronon, Pierson Ferdinand
- 4The Year That Was
- 5Employment Law Changes Expected From Second Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250