Investigating 'Hybrid' Retaliation Claims
In the era of the whistleblower, we often see "hybrid" complaints in which claims of discrimination or harassment are coupled with a claim of retaliation for blowing the whistle on alleged illegal conduct. Employers need to consider putting processes in place that will help to assure a fair and thorough investigation of claims of improper conduct, while protecting the legitimate rights of employees who raise those concerns in good faith.
May 10, 2023 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
In the era of the whistleblower, we often see "hybrid" complaints in which claims of discrimination or harassment are coupled with a claim of retaliation for blowing the whistle on alleged illegal conduct. For example, an employee may claim that her employer discriminated against her because of her sex and retaliated against her for blowing the whistle on violations of anti-money laundering or environmental laws, or accounting or shareholder fraud.
Internal investigations of hybrid claims may require an understanding of issues that go beyond whether the employee suffered discrimination or harassment. The investigator will need to understand the employer's regulatory environment and whether the employee's claim of wrongdoing are correct—and, critically, whether the employee's belief that the employer was violating the law was reasonable.
It therefore may be unwise, when presented with a hybrid retaliation claim, for any one department of a company, or for any single investigator, to be solely responsible for carrying out the investigation. Instead, several stakeholders, such as executives in Human Resources, Compliance, or Legal, may need to have joint responsibility. They will necessarily focus on different activities and inquiries.
This content has been archived.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 AllWhistleblowers Are Here To Stay: Counseling Corporate Clients on Whistleblower Programs
9 minute readRecent Developments Under New York's Amended Whistleblower Protection Law
9 minute readFormer McKinsey & Co. Partner Sues Firm for Defamation Over 'Scapegoating'
Internal Investigations and Self-Disclosures in a Time of Enhanced Whistleblower Incentives
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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