This articles details a United States Supreme Court opinion that may prove very valuable to employers in defending retaliation claims brought by current or former employees.

Creating and fostering an open work environment can be challenging to employers.

The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has held. that former employees may sue under Title VII o.

When an employee believes an employer has discriminated against him or her, the worker often can't just file a laws.

Tips on how to file a complaint from the Office of Civil Rights if you believe that you have been discriminated against because of your handicap.

New decisions seem to keep popping up everywhere, adding to the complexity of managing employees. Two recent ones deserve some special attention: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, decided on June 22, 2006, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and U-Haul Co of California, decided on June 8, 2006, by the National Labor Relations Board. The former makes it easier for disgruntled employees to claim retaliation under Title VII; the latter may call into question the enforceability of many individual employee-employer arbitration agreements.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against one of the country's biggest and most well-known law firms, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood ("Sidley Austin"). The EEOC alleges that the law firm, which maintains an age-based retirement policy, discriminated against its own partners by engaging in a campaign of illegal age discrimination. The lawsuit seeks reinstatement of the partners, injunctive relief, and monetary damages that could exceed over $30 million.

If an employee complains about his employer's conduct, and the conduct isn't actually unlawful, may the employee still have a viable claim for discrimination? Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the answer is "yes." Under that Act, an employee is entitled to complain (internally to the company or externally to a governmental agency) about what she perceives to be unlawful discrimination by the employer against any company employee. Such complaining or "opposition" is considered protected activity.

Last month we ran Part I of this article which explored various state and federal anti-retaliation laws and how they protect employees who allege or are about to allege workplace discrimination or other violations.

Employees in California need not explicitly say they are opposing discrimination in order to claim retaliation, and can show opposition simply by refusing to comply with an employer's directives.

After being terminated by her employer, IBP, Moland brought a Title VII action for sexual harassment and retaliation against Bil-Mar Foods.

For employers, retaliation claims may very well be the scariest area of employment discrimination law because the merit of the employee's initial discrimination complaint may not prevent an employee from reaching a jury and ultimately prevailing on a retaliation claim. To establish retaliation, an employee need only show, generally, that he or she engaged in a "protected activity" (e.g., complaining of discrimination to management or filing a charge with the EEOC) and thereafter suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., termination, demotion, denial of a promotion), because of the protected activity. Perhaps for that reason, the number of retaliation-based charges filed with the EEOC has nearly tripled over the last 15 years.

New decisions seem to keep popping up everywhere, adding to the complexity of managing employees. Two recent ones deserve some special attention: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, decided on June 22, 2006, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and U-Haul Co of California, decided on June 8, 2006, by the National Labor Relations Board. The former makes it easier for disgruntled employees to claim retaliation under Title VII; the latter may call into question the enforceability of many individual employee-employer arbitration agreements.

This article examines the EEOC's guidance in regards to the investigation of employer retaliation towards an employee who has filed a discrimination suit.