Retaliation Meaning In Tamil

[Christina Smith]

Retaliationis the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. As EEOC works to address this issue, you can help.

The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment. Asserting these EEO rights is called "protected activity," and it can take many forms. For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

Participating in a complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she did not use legal terminology to describe it.

Engaging in EEO activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers are free to discipline or terminate workers if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such consequences. However, an employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination.

The Department is dedicated to promoting a workplace that provides equal opportunities for all and is free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Any form of discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory conduct undermines the morale and values of the Department and has no place in our workplace. A critical part of achieving a workplace free of these types of conduct is for all employees to know what these terms mean.

The differential treatment of an individual or group of people based on their race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), age, marital and parental status, disability, sexual orientation, or genetic information.

Taking an action that might deter a reasonable person from participating in activity protected by antidiscrimination and/or whistleblower laws. Protected activity includes: complaining about discriminatory or harassing behavior; disclosing/reporting violations of law, rule or procedure or fraud, waste or abuse; and participating in discrimination or whistleblower proceedings (such as an investigation or lawsuit). Retaliatory actions are not limited to formal personnel actions such as termination, demotion, non-promotion, or non-selection. Retaliatory actions are broadly defined to harassing behavior, significant changes to job duties or working conditions, and even threats to take personnel actions. Retaliation against employees who engage in protected activities under Personnel Bulletin 18-01 is also prohibited by that policy.

Over the past decade, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reported that retaliation is the most common issue alleged by federal employees and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. Nearly half of all complaints filed during fiscal year (FY) 2013 were retaliation complaints, with 42 percent of findings of discrimination based on retaliation.

In fact, retaliation has been the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector since fiscal year 2008. In addition, the number of discrimination findings based on a retaliation claim has outpaced other bases of discrimination.

In a large number of these cases, it is common for an original discrimination allegation (on a basis other than retaliation) fail to establish a violation of the law, but the subsequent retaliation allegation results in a discrimination finding.

Why is this so common? Why does a situation move from an unproven/unsubstantiated allegation to a later violation based on the manager's response to the employee initiating a complaint? The simple answer is that individuals often seek to avenge a perceived offense. The desire to retaliate is a common human reaction, but when done by a management official because employees assert their right to challenge a perceived wrong, the retaliation can establish legal liability.

A manager may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a complaint of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability and genetic information also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding.

It is important to understand how retaliation manifests and to prevent it from occurring. If retaliation for such activities were permitted, it would have a chilling effect upon the willingness of individuals to speak out against employment discrimination or to participate in the EEOC's administrative process or other employment discrimination proceedings. Thus, EEO practitioners must work diligently with managers to ensure that retaliation is not permitted in the workplace.

It is obvious that the cause and effect of interpersonal conflicts can potentially implicate a legal process. This is particularly apparent with retaliation law because the legal standard requires an examination of the behavior after the allegation. The standard for proving a retaliation claim requires showing that the manager's action might deter a reasonable person from opposing discrimination or participating in the EEOC complaint process.

In a recent case, an employee who had filed several unsuccessful EEO complaints, subsequently sought promotions within the organization. The employee learned that her manager had placed information about the previous EEO proceedings in her personnel file and communicated that the employee had filed several complaints when contacted for reference checks. The EEOC found that the statements made during the reference check were retaliatory and further that the EEO information placed in the employee's personnel file was unnecessary and hindered her promotional opportunities.

Similarly, another recent case involved an employee who claimed that she was discriminated against during the promotional interview process. Two of the three interview panelists were managers involved in current or previous EEO complaints by the employee and one of the panelists attempted to influence the selection process by asking a question that paralleled a previous conflict between the panelist and the employee. A witness reported that he had heard the manager make the statement, "I don't get mad, I get even" in reference to employees who make discrimination claims. EEOC found that the selection process was tainted by retaliatory conduct and ordered the agency to promote the employee.

In another example, EEOC found retaliation partly based on the fact that the employee was refused use of a government vehicle. In this case, the manager's reaction to the employee's EEO complaint was to take away a perk (i.e., use of the government car), while another coworker was allowed continued use of the vehicle. While the manager had the discretion to allocate the use of the vehicle and other "perks," retaliation can be established if it is shown to be more likely than not that the discretionary decision was based upon a retaliatory motive.

While close temporal proximity between the EEO allegation and the manger's action can be a key factor in establishing the retaliatory motive, there have been cases in which years have passed and other evidence established that the employee's earlier EEO activities motivated the manager's action. Even absent suspicious timing, other relevant facts may include verbal or written statements; comparative evidence that a similarly situated employee was treated differently; falsity of the employer's proffered reason for the adverse action; or any other evidence from which an inference of retaliatory intent might be drawn.

In a final example, EEOC found that management was openly hostile towards an employee's protected EEO activity. Specifically, the employee's manager described the employee's discrimination allegations as "unprofessional," and his higher level manager found them "highly offensive" and "bad for morale." During the subsequent EEO proceeding, coworkers revealed an overall feeling of distrust and concern about the employee after his initial complaint. EEOC noted that the first-level manager saw this growing tension, but failed to ensure that coworkers understood and respected the employee's right to file a complaint.

From a legal perspective, the typical concern is with the act of retaliation and whether an employer is engaging in unlawful behavior. Unlike the legal definition of retaliation, behavioral science focuses on retaliation as an intra- and interpersonal experience that encompasses subjective definitions of "harm" and "offense", with the act of retaliation being a mechanism for addressing transgression. (1) In this sense, it is important to understand the problem from a human perspective. Social psychology has provided a broader understanding of the underlying causes of retaliatory behavior.

The act of retaliation is equivalent to revenge where a person perceives unfair treatment and attempts to restore equilibrium by taking the matter into his or her own hands. Research has consistently demonstrated that the desire for retaliation is common upon experiencing an offensive interpersonal encounter, particularly if the encounter threatens one's self image. Interestingly, while the desire to retaliate is common, acting on this inclination is not, as doing so can be quite costly in social settings.

Unlike other animals, humans are unique in their ability to weigh consequences and make decisions based on what is most beneficial within a given socio-cultural context. In this respect, they have the ability to override more basic inclinations and behave based on what is socially (or legally) acceptable. Cognitive, emotional, and social processes can override "instinct" and guide behavioral choices. Ultimately, the decision to retaliate is a consequence of an interaction of these factors.

3a8082e126