Employment Related Retaliation Complaints: A Summary For Florida Law Firms And Florida Attorneys Who Represent Management
The US Supreme Court, in CBOCS West v. Humphries, “Cracker Barrel” made a decision that impacts employers, and how they handle their employees, current and former. In Cracker Barrel, the Supreme Court found that the 100-plus year old federal statute of Section 1981 (42 U.S.C. sec. 1981) has renewed relevance. This decision should grab the attention of Florida employers and companies.
After the Civil War, the United States Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granting the recently freed slaves (African Americans) many federal guarantees including national citizenship, contract rights, court access and equal protection. When the United States Fourteenth Amendment became law, Congress reaffirmed the 1866 Civil Rights Act by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (42 U.S.C. sec.1891). The 1870 Act guaranteed equal rights to each person having the same rights for every State, allowed to make and enforce contracts, and provide protection against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination. The Civil rights act of 1964 and it’s Title VII updates updated the 1866 and 1870 acts. Decades later, the same Cracker Barrel Court ruled that section 1981 covers claims of retaliation filed against employers. As a result, the federal courts have applied Section 1981 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination in employment. The Court ruled that Section 1981 is a proper method to file discriminatory claims, even though many retaliation claims could be handled administratively under Title VII instead. The difference between the two methods is the choice made whether the retaliation claim is filed under Section 1981 or under Title VII.
New Rules For Federal Employment Law
Section 1981 does not require submission of retaliation claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) through Title VII. Section 1981 has a four-year statute of limitations, not 180 days as limited by Title VII. As explained later, the choice of retaliation-claim method may result in potentially different outcomes for plaintiff-employees and their defendant-employers.
The Supreme Court ruling in Cracker Barrel lowers the hurdles and extends time restrictions under which plaintiff-employees can bring retaliation claims against their Florida Employers. This Court decision has made a significant impact on Florida Employers and the Florida Lawyers who practice employment law. The facts is that Cracker Barrel could easily have happened to a Florida Employer, i.e. being sued by a current or former employee. The plaintiff (employee) in Cracker Barrel was an assistant manager of a Cracker Barrel Restaurant owned by the defendant (employer). The plaintiff-employee was fired from Cracker Barrel and then subsequently filed a lawsuit in United States District Court, seeking relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Section 1981. The plaintiff-employee manager stated that he was fired because of discrimination based on his race and retaliation for his complaining to management about the firing of a fellow African-American employee. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff-employee’s Title VII claims, as well as their Section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims. The seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the lower court on the retaliation claim, finding for the plaintiff-employee. The defendant-employer (Cracker Barrel Restaurant) then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the Appeals Court. The Supreme Court found that an action for retaliation against an employer can be brought under Section 1981 by an employee.
In addition to Section 1981, the Cracker Barrel decision was also rooted from the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decision that it made in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park. The Court in Sullivan held that under Section1982, a plaintiff could bring a claim for retaliation. Based on both sections’ shared origin and purpose, the Supreme Court decided that retaliation claims can be filed under Sections 1981 and 1982.
Retaliation claims were expanded to include Section 1981 as a result of the Cracker Barrel decision. This is considered a win for plaintiff-employees, whereas it’s a considerable potential liability for Florida Employers. Florida Lawyers generally view this as victory for plaintiff-employees who are freed of the procedural requirements of Title VII, as a result of the Cracker Barrel decision.
The following is the impact the Cracker Barrel decision will have on Florida Employers. The Court’s interpretation that Section 1981 can now handle retaliation claims has a number of important consequences to both employees and employers:
A) Under Section 1981, plaintiff-employee claimants do not have to file for remedies under Title VII. Should a plaintiff-employee choose a Title VII claim, then that retaliation claim must be filed with the EEOC, not a court of law. If the EEOC cannot resolve the retaliation complaint, it issues a right-to-sue notice to the plaintiff-employee, releasing it from the administrative process of Title VII. A possible misstep – if a plaintiff-employee doesn’t follow precisely the Title VII requirements, the result will be a quick dismissal of their retaliation claim vs the employer.
B) Whereas a plaintiff-employee filing under Title VII will have “180″ days to file a discriminatory complaint, Section 1981 statute of limitations gives a plaintiff-employee “four years” to file a retaliatory complaint against a Florida employer. Section 1981 extends the liability exposure to a Florida Employer.
C) Caution. This is the “net” that will catch all Florida Employers → Section 1981 applies to all employers regardless of size; but, Title VII has limits that cover employers with 15 or more employees for any 20 weeks within one year. This impacts significantly Florida Employers, because there are many Florida Employers who have a successful business with fewer than 15 employees. The Cracker Barrel ruling means that the Title VII “180-day statute of limitations” filing period is now extended to a 4-year window of potential liability for small and large Florida Employers alike, regardless of the number of employees. This results in long-term exposure to potential liability for a Florida Employer from disgruntled former employees. If that doesn’t grab your attention, there’s one more significant consequence to consider, as a Florida Employer.
D) There is no statutory cap on damages when a plaintiff-employee files under Section 1981. However, if filing under Title VII, there are “statutory limits” for compensatory and punitive damages that a plaintiff-employee could possibly be awarded. Limits are capped between $50,000 and $300,000. Therefore, a Section 1981 retaliatory claim filing could result in “unlimited damages” being awarded to plaintiff-employees → at the expense of the defendant-Florida Employer.
Florida Employers Should Develop Procedures To Combat Retaliation Claims
To minimize this serious side-step window that the United States Supreme Court has created → enabling potential plaintiff-employees to attack Florida Employers with many creative legal methods and procedures that extend the liability exposure, Florida Employers should contact their Florida Lawyers to help them develop a company policy-plan.
Plaintiffs (employees) who seek retaliation claims against Florida Employers will most likely be advised by their Florida Lawyers to file under Section 1981, rather than under Title VII. These are basically “opposition-driven” retaliation claims creating legal hurdles that Florida Employers must overcome. This Cracker Barrel decision gives plaintiff-employees many advantages over a Florida Employer who is now faced with trying to defend against potentially unlimited-damages awards – all due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cracker Barrel. The Supreme Court essentially lined up a parallel method of stream-lined and extended legal relief with real options for the potential plaintiff-employee. This comes at the expense of the Florida Employer. The Florida Lawyers at Lynch & Robbins, P.A., would be happy to schedule an appointment with you and your company to help you evaluate potential liabilities as a result of the Cracker Barrel decision.
