Retaliation

Summary

This video script from the Montana Human Rights Bureau addresses the issue of retaliation under anti-discrimination laws. It explains that retaliation is a significant concern, with the bureau receiving numerous complaints annually. The script outlines the legal definition of retaliation, which is narrower than the general understanding, focusing on adverse actions taken against individuals for engaging in protected activities such as opposing discrimination or filing complaints. It details the elements required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, including proof of protected activity, significant adverse actions, and a causal connection. The video also discusses the burden of proof and the importance of evidence in retaliation cases. Finally, it offers best practices for preventing retaliation in the workplace.

Takeaways

• 📚 Retaliation is prohibited under Montana's and federal anti-discrimination laws, and is the second most common complaint received by the Montana Human Rights Bureau.
• 🔍 The legal definition of retaliation is more specific than the dictionary definition, focusing on significant adverse acts taken against someone for engaging in protected activities.
• 🚫 Protected activities include opposing discrimination, participating in investigations or proceedings, and requesting accommodations for disabilities or religious practices.
• 🏢 The definition of 'person' under the Montana Human Rights Act is broad, including individuals, organizations, and agencies, which can all be held liable for retaliatory actions.
• 🚫 Forbidden practices are outlined in specific chapters and generally refer to unlawful discrimination based on protected class membership in areas such as employment, housing, and education.
• 💡 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a charging party must prove they engaged in protected activity, were subjected to a significant adverse act, and there is a causal connection between the two.
• 🔗 Evidence of retaliation can include direct statements of intent to retaliate, comparative data showing inconsistent treatment, or timing that suggests a connection between protected activity and adverse action.
• ⚖️ If a charging party can prove a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for their actions, which the charging party can then attempt to disprove.
• 🏛️ Direct evidence of retaliation or significant adverse acts taken within six months of a concluded discrimination complaint create a disputable presumption of retaliation, shifting the burden to the respondent.
• ✅ Best practices for preventing retaliation in employment include clear communication, regular training, promoting a grievance system, leadership commitment, seeking independent oversight, and monitoring the work environment.

Q & A

What is the definition of retaliation under Montana's anti-discrimination laws?

Retaliation under Montana's anti-discrimination laws is defined as a significant adverse act taken against a person because they engaged in a protected activity, such as opposing discrimination or participating in a related investigation.

What is the difference between the dictionary definition of retaliation and the legal definition in Montana's anti-discrimination laws?

The dictionary defines retaliation as getting revenge or returning like for like, whereas Montana's anti-discrimination laws define it more specifically as an adverse act taken because someone engaged in protected activities like opposing discrimination.

What are examples of protected activities under Montana’s anti-discrimination laws?

Examples of protected activities include opposing unlawful practices, filing a complaint, testifying, assisting, or participating in investigations or proceedings related to discrimination, and requesting accommodations for disabilities or religious beliefs.

Who can be liable for retaliatory actions under the Montana Human Rights Act?

Under the Montana Human Rights Act, 'person' is broadly defined to include individuals, labor unions, corporations, employers, organizations, legal representatives, and employment agencies. This means a wide range of entities can be liable for retaliatory actions.

What types of practices are considered unlawful and can lead to retaliation if opposed?

Unlawful practices include employment discrimination, refusal to return a female employee to work after maternity leave, housing discrimination based on protected classes, and other discriminatory actions in protected areas like employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and financial transactions.

What constitutes a 'significant adverse act' in a retaliation case?

A significant adverse act is one that would discourage a reasonable person from engaging in a protected activity. Examples include violence, threats, demotion, denial of benefits, expulsion, eviction, or other actions affecting employment, housing, or public accommodations.

What is meant by 'reasonable opposition' in the context of retaliation?

Reasonable opposition refers to opposing discrimination in a manner that is appropriate and does not cause disruption. For example, loudly accusing an employer of racism in front of customers may not be considered reasonable, even if the claim itself is valid.

How does the shifting burden analysis work in retaliation cases?

Once a charging party proves a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for their actions. If the respondent does this, the burden shifts back to the charging party to prove that the reason is pretextual.

What is the 'disputable presumption' in retaliation cases?

A disputable presumption occurs if a retaliatory action happens within six months of a discrimination complaint being filed or resolved. In such cases, the respondent must prove that their actions were non-retaliatory, instead of the charging party having to prove retaliation.

What are some best practices for preventing retaliation in the workplace?

Best practices include clear communication of expectations after a protected activity, routine training on discrimination and retaliation, promoting a visible grievance system, leadership commitment to anti-retaliation policies, seeking independent input for decisions, and monitoring the work environment.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Retaliation in Montana Human Rights

This paragraph introduces the topic of retaliation under Montana's anti-discrimination laws and federal laws. It highlights that retaliation is the second most common complaint received by the Montana Human Rights Bureau. The paragraph explains the legal definition of retaliation, which is more specific than the common understanding, focusing on significant adverse acts taken against individuals for engaging in protected activities. The protected activities include opposing discriminatory practices, filing complaints, testifying, assisting, or participating in investigations related to discrimination. The paragraph also discusses the broad definition of 'person' under the law, which can include individuals, organizations, and agencies, thus expanding the scope of potential retaliators.

05:01

🔍 Analyzing Retaliation Complaints and Protected Activities

This paragraph delves into the process of analyzing retaliation complaints and the concept of protected activities. It outlines the three elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of retaliation: engaging in protected activity, being subjected to an adverse act, and proving a connection between the two. The paragraph further explains the types of protected activities, such as opposition to discrimination, participation in investigations, and requests for accommodations. It emphasizes the need for opposition to be in good faith and reasonable, using examples to illustrate these points. The paragraph concludes by discussing the significance of proving a causal link between protected activity and adverse acts, which can be established through timing, intent, or other evidence.

10:02

🛠️ Defining Adverse Acts and Causal Connection in Retaliation

The third paragraph discusses what constitutes a significant adverse act in the context of retaliation, which is an act that could deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activities. It provides examples of such acts, ranging from violence and intimidation to more subtle actions like demotion or denial of benefits. The paragraph also explains the need to establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse act, which can be demonstrated through timing, witness statements, or direct evidence of retaliatory intent. It outlines the legal process where the burden of proof shifts between the charging party and the respondent, depending on the evidence presented, and the standards for proving retaliation.

15:03

📉 Evidence and Burden of Proof in Retaliation Cases

This paragraph focuses on the evidence required to prove a retaliation case and the burden of proof. It discusses how direct evidence of retaliation can shift the burden to the respondent to prove that their actions were not motivated by retaliation. The paragraph also mentions the 'disputable presumption' that arises when an adverse act is taken within six months of a discrimination complaint, placing the burden on the respondent to prove non-retaliatory intent. Examples are provided to illustrate how inconsistencies in an employer's treatment of employees can be used to demonstrate pretext. The paragraph concludes by noting that an individual can file a complaint for retaliation based on their association with someone engaged in protected activity.

20:04

🏢 Best Practices for Preventing Retaliation in Employment

The final paragraph offers best practices for preventing retaliation in the workplace. It suggests maintaining clear communication, educating staff on discrimination and retaliation, promoting a robust grievance system, ensuring leadership commitment to anti-retaliation policies, seeking independent oversight for sensitive decisions, and monitoring the work environment. The paragraph concludes by providing contact information for the Montana Human Rights Bureau for further inquiries or assistance regarding retaliation or discrimination.

Keywords

💡Retaliation

Retaliation refers to the act of taking revenge or responding to a perceived wrong, often in a harmful or adverse manner. In the context of the video, it specifically addresses the legal concept of retaliation under Montana's and federal anti-discrimination laws, where it is unlawful to take significant adverse actions against someone because they engaged in a protected activity. The video discusses how retaliation is the second highest complaint filed with the Montana Human Rights Bureau.

💡Protected Activity

Protected activity encompasses actions that are safeguarded under anti-discrimination laws, such as opposing discriminatory practices, participating in investigations, or filing complaints. The video explains that these activities are protected and that retaliation against individuals engaging in them is prohibited. An example would be an employee who files a complaint about discrimination and is later subjected to negative treatment by their employer.

💡Significant Adverse Act

A significant adverse act is a negative action that could deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activities. The video provides examples such as demotion, denial of benefits, or eviction. These acts are considered retaliatory if they are taken in response to someone's engagement in protected activities.

💡Prima Facie Case

A prima facie case is a legal term indicating that a case is sufficient to win if there are no contradicting evidence. In the video, it is mentioned that a charging party must prove three elements to establish a prima facie case of retaliation: engaging in protected activity, being subjected to a significant adverse act, and showing a connection between the two.

💡Shifting Burden Analysis

Shifting Burden Analysis is a legal process where the responsibility to provide evidence shifts between parties. The video describes how after a charging party proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for their actions, and then back to the charging party to prove that this reason is pretext.

💡Preponderance of the Evidence

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof used in civil cases, including retaliation claims, where a party must prove that their version of events is more likely true than not. The video mentions that a charging party must prove retaliation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more probable than not that retaliation took place.

💡Direct Evidence

Direct evidence is proof that directly establishes a fact in issue, without the need for inference or presumption. The video gives an example of direct evidence as a statement from a respondent expressing intent to retaliate against a charging party, which eliminates the need for a prima facie case and shifts the burden to the respondent to prove their actions were not retaliatory.

💡Protected Class

A protected class refers to a group of individuals who are protected from discrimination under the law based on certain characteristics such as race, gender, national origin, etc. The video explains that for an action to be discriminatory, it must occur in a protected area and be based on a person's membership in a protected class.

💡Opposition

Opposition, in the context of the video, refers to the act of an individual standing against practices that are forbidden under anti-discrimination laws. It is considered a form of protected activity. An example from the script is an employee who voices concerns about potential age discrimination, which is a form of opposition.

💡Accommodation

Accommodation refers to the adjustments or modifications made to allow individuals with disabilities or religious beliefs to participate fully in the workplace or other areas. The video mentions that requesting an accommodation is a protected activity, and retaliating against someone for such a request is prohibited.

💡By Association Complaint

A by association complaint is a type of retaliation complaint where an individual experiences adverse action because of their relationship or association with someone who has engaged in protected activity. The video notes that retaliation can occur due to association, expanding the scope of potential victims of retaliation.

Highlights

Retaliation is the second highest filing received by the Montana Human Rights Bureau each year.

Retaliation is defined differently under Montana's and federal anti-discrimination laws than the general dictionary definition.

Protected activity includes opposing discrimination, participating in investigations, and requesting accommodations.

Opposition to discrimination is protected even if it's informal, as long as it's done in good faith and reasonably.

Participation in any investigation or proceeding regarding discrimination is considered protected activity.

Requests for accommodations due to disability or religion are protected activities in the employment area.

A significant adverse act must be proven to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

A causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action is required to prove retaliation.

Direct evidence of retaliation shifts the burden of proof to the respondent to show no unlawful motive was involved.

A disputable presumption of retaliation arises if an adverse act is taken within six months of a discrimination complaint's conclusion.

Witness statements and comparative data can help prove pretext in retaliation cases.

Retaliation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that it occurred.

The broad definition of 'person' under the Montana Human Rights Act includes various entities that can be liable for retaliation.

Protected classes under federal and state laws are outlined, and discrimination must occur within a protected area.

Best practices for preventing retaliation in employment include clear communication, education, and a strong grievance system.

For more information on retaliation, discrimination, or the Montana Human Rights Bureau, visit www.montanadiscrimination.com.

Transcripts

[Music]

hello and welcome to a montana human

rights bureau presentation on

retaliation

although retaliation and discrimination

complaints are two separate types of

complaints

retaliation is proscribed under

montana's anti-discrimination laws and

federal anti-discrimination

laws as such the human rights bureau is

tasked with investigating complaints of

retaliation as well as discrimination

retaliation has been for some time and

continues to be

the second highest filing that the

bureau receives each year

retaliation is statutorily defined and

is different than the dictionary

definition of the word

and what most people understand as

retaliation

the merriam-webster definition of

retaliate or retaliation is to return

like for like or get revenge

however the definition under the state

and federal anti-discrimination laws is

much more specific

regarding the reason or motivation

behind the revenge taken

the bureau only has the authority to

investigate complaints of retaliation

that allege that a respondent took a

significant adverse act against a

charging party

because that person engaged in a

protected activity

anti-retaliation provisions are found

under both the montana human rights

act and the governmental code affair

practices combined these statutes

prohibit a person

educational institution financial

institution governmental entity

or state or local governmental agency

from discharging

expelling blacklisting or discriminating

against someone in any fashion

because he or she engaged in protected

activity

the language of these statutes provide

that protected activity is opposing

any practices forbidden under the

montana human rights

act or the governmental code of fair

practices which in essence is opposing

discrimination

the statutes also state that filing a

complaint testifying assisting or

participating in any manner in an

investigation or proceeding of

allegations

of discrimination is protected activity

it should be noted that when the statute

states it's unlawful for a person to

retaliate

the montana human rights act defines

person very broadly

the statutory definition of person means

one or more individuals

labor unions partnerships associations

corporations legal representatives

employers

organizations and employment agencies

this broad definition is important

because it widens the scope

of who can be liable for taking

retaliatory actions

you may have noticed that the statutes

pertaining to retaliation mention that

it is unlawful to retaliate against

someone for opposing practices forbidden

under this

chapter what are those forbidden

practices

well those chapters outline very

specific forbidden practices

such as the requirement for an employer

to return a female employee to work in a

same or equivalent position after

maternity leave

or the prohibition of notices or

advertisements for housing

that indicates a preference or

limitation based on protected class

to whom housing will be sold or rented

however

forbidden practices more generally mean

unlawful discrimination

which is when someone takes an adverse

act against an individual

in a protected area because he or she is

a member of a protected class

the protected areas of

anti-discrimination laws are

employment public accommodations

governmental services

housing education insurance

and financial transactions so for

example if someone complains that they

were refused alone because of his or her

race

that is opposing discrimination in the

protected area financial transactions

the discrimination being opposed must

occur within one of these protected

areas to be considered protected

activity

here you see the protected classes under

federal and state laws enforced by the

bureau

in order for an action to be

discriminatory not only must it be taken

in a protected area

as reviewed in the previous slide but

the action must have been

also taken because of the person's

membership in one of these protected

classes

in a previous example someone complained

they were denied alone based on race

so race was the protected class another

example is if a girl complains to her

high school that she is treated

differently than other students

because she is from morocco which places

her in the protected class of national

origin and the protected area of

education

by making that complaint she has engaged

in protected activity

however if a girl complains she's

treated differently at school because

she has blonde hair

which is not a protected class such

complaint would not be protected

activity because the actions being

opposed

are not based on a protected class and

are therefore not discriminatory

when a retaliation complaint is filed

with the bureau

this is the initial analysis it uses to

determine if a charging party can

establish a primo fascia case of

retaliation

primo fascia is a latin term that means

on its first appearance

the charging party must prove each

element of a primo fascia case

to show that what respondent did the

adverse act

looks like retaliation on its first

appearance

the first element requires the charging

party prove that he or she engaged in a

protected activity

next the charging party must show that

he or she was subjected to a bad act by

respondent

and lastly the charging party must prove

that there is a connection between his

or her engaging in the protected

activity

and the significant adverse act taken by

respondent

now let's look at each of these elements

more closely

in order to analyze whether or not a

charging party satisfies the first

element of the primo fascia case for

retaliation

you must understand what constitutes

protected activity

protected activity includes opposition

participation

and requests for accommodations we will

now look a little closer at each

protected activity

there are three things to understand

regarding opposing discrimination

the forbidden practices we reviewed

earlier as a protected activity

opposition puts a respondent on notice

it is done in good

faith and it is done reasonably

opposition can be protected

even if it's informal a person does not

have to use magic words like protected

class

harassment or discrimination at the

bureau we look at it from the

perspective

of whether the charging party said

something to the respondent

that put the respondent on notice that

the charging party was concerned about

something that would fall within the

bureau's purview

said another way is the charging party

voicing a concern that the bureau might

be interested in

as an example if an employee says to his

boss i think i'm getting paid less than

tori

she's younger and started after me and i

trained her up

that is a complaint that an employee

feels treated less favorably than

someone who is younger

this statement is opposition to possible

age discrimination

accordingly an employee making such a

statement has engaged in protected

activity

but to the second point on our slide if

you're opposing something

you have to oppose in good faith the

protection for opposition is limited to

those people

that act with a reasonable good faith

belief that the conduct opposed is

unlawful or could become unlawful if

repeated

so what if a woman complains to her boss

that she doesn't like that her co-worker

asked her out on a date

well this one act may not legally

qualify as sexual harassment

but the co-worker could possibly

continue on a path that would become

harassing if left unchecked

therefore the woman's complaint of an

incident that could manifest as sexual

harassment

would be protected activity if her

employer's response to her complaint

is to put her on the worst shift

possible just to get her

out of the way of the offender that may

be retaliation for her complaint

let's now take a moment to talk about

reasonable opposition

because reasonable opposition is

different than good faith opposition

if you're going to oppose discrimination

you still have to do it in a reasonable

manner

if your manner of opposition is

unreasonable you may end up giving your

employer a legitimate

non-retaliatory reason to take an

adverse act against you

for example we had a charging party file

a complaint at the bureau who works in a

bar

and when her boss called in to talk to

her while she was at work

she started a bit of a tirade yelling at

the person who answered the phone that

she didn't want to talk to their boss

because he was a racist yes the charging

party complained about discrimination

by saying that her boss is a racist but

it wouldn't matter if she was

complaining about discrimination

or the cost of cocktail nappings you

holler that in front of patrons and

employees there's probably going to be

consequences

the bureau recognizes that a charging

party may not prevail

on a complaint if it was brought in bad

faith or if the manner of opposition was

not reasonable

the next type of protected activity is

participation

respondents cannot punish a person for

filing a complaint

serving as a witness or participating in

any other way

in an investigation matter even if the

underlying discrimination allegation is

unsuccessful

or untimely this has been interpreted to

include participation in an employer's

internal complaint process

as well even if a charge of

discrimination has not yet been filed

the third and last type of protected

activity is requests for accommodation

requesting an accommodation for either a

disability or religion is a protected

activity in the area of employment

an example of a request for religious

accommodation can be your native

american employee

asking for time off to attend a pow-wow

request for an accommodation for a

disability

much like retaliation is complex and an

entire separate training topic on its

own

but for now just understand that a

request for an accommodation is when an

employee expresses to his or her

employer

a need for a modification or change at

work due to a mental or physical health

condition

for example if an employee requests time

off to seek out cancer treatment

that is a request for accommodation for

a disability

if the employer then schedules that

employee for an unfavorable shift

or discharges him because he requested

time offers disability

the employer retaliated against the

employee

once it's established that a charging

party engaged in a protected activity

he or she must next prove that the

respondent subjected him or her to a

significant adverse act

in order to satisfy the second element

of the primo fascia retaliation case

a significant adverse act is one that

would dissuade a reasonable person from

engaging in a protected activity

the administrative rules of montana

provide a non-exhaustive list of

possible actions

that could amount to a significant

adverse act of retaliation

including violence or threats of

violence

intimidation discharge demotion or

denial of benefits

expulsion denial of privileges or goods

at a public accommodation

eviction or other action that adversely

affects availability of housing

opportunities

or a denial of credit or insurance

although these examples include tangible

employment actions

significant adverse actions can be much

broader in scope

for example in the area of employment an

employer could take a significant

adverse act

in retaliation against an employee

exclusively outside of work

such as a supervisor starting an

altercation with an employee at a

company picnic

because the employee made unfavorable

statements about the supervisor's

discriminatory actions

during an investigation into

discrimination

the third and final element of the

retaliation primo fascia case requires

the charging party to prove that there

is a causal connection or nexus between

the protected activity

and the significant adverse action

evidence that may support there is a

connection

include suspiciously close timing

between the protected activity and the

adverse action

or proof that respondent intended to

retaliate against charging party by way

of comments by the respondent

or witness statements

if a charging party is able to satisfy

all three elements and prove a prima

facie case of retaliation

then a shifting burden analysis is used

once the charging party meets the burden

of proving the primo fascia case the

burden then shifts to the respondent to

produce a legitimate

non-retaliatory reason for the adverse

act it took against the charging party

once the respondent produces that

legitimate non-retaliatory reason

the burden shifts back to the charging

party to prove that the reason proffered

by respondent

is pretext or unworthy of belief

in order to prevail on a retaliation

complaint a charging party must prove

his or her case by a preponderance of

the evidence

this means that retaliation more likely

than not occurred

this standard is less onerous than

beyond a reasonable doubt or based on

clear and convincing evidence

rather it is a 51 probability based on

the evidence at hand that discrimination

occurred

a preponderance of the evidence standard

is the same standard used by courts

reviewing retaliation cases

so what type of evidence helps a

charging party overcome that last hurdle

in the shifting burden

what shows that a respondent's reason

for challenged conduct is pretext or

unworthy of belief

any evidence that tends to show that the

proffered legitimate non-retaliatory

reason is false

can lead to a charging party prevailing

on a retaliation complaint

witness statements that bolster a

charging party's position or

impeach a respondent's reasons for

taking a significant adverse action

may prove pretext also comparative data

can help disprove a respondent's

legitimate non-retaliatory reasons

for example the bureau had a case where

a salesman opposed discriminatory

conduct by a supervisor

and thereafter was disciplined and

eventually terminated for not

consistently using

the company software tracking system for

sales calls

he only entered his numbers on the

system here and there

the comparative data showed that another

member of the sales team

one who had not engaged in protected

activity had not used the software at

all for months failing to record any

activity

yet that team member received no

punishment

this inconsistency in the respondent's

actions towards its employees when

meeting out discipline

proved that the employer's reason for

disciplining the salesman and

terminating his employment

were pretext to retaliate against him

for engaging in protected activity

as mentioned earlier witnesses reporting

that the respondent made statements of

an intent to retaliate against charging

party may be evidence of a causal

connection between protected activity

and an adverse act

but what if a respondent says rights

emails or

texts such a statement directly to the

charging party

that would be direct evidence of

retaliation it is important to note that

the administrative rules of montana

changed this analysis a bit in the event

that there is direct evidence of

discrimination or retaliation

when there is direct evidence there is

no shifting burden but rather

respondent must prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that an unlawful motive

played no role in the action it took

against charging party

alternatively respondent can prove that

the direct evidence is not credible

and unworthy of belief an example of

direct

evidence of retaliation would be a

landlord telling his tenant

maybe next time you'll think twice about

filing a complaint with hud against me

when the tenant asks why he's being

evicted by the landlord

in addition to direct evidence there is

another way a charging party can get

around having to prove a primo fascia

case of retaliation

if a charging party has a complaint of

discrimination or retaliation at any

stage of the administrative process with

the department of labor and industry

or in court and with knowledge of that

complaint a respondent takes a

significant adverse act against charging

party

the respondent will then have to

overcome a disputable presumption that

the adverse action was retaliation

the disputable presumption is also

created for any significant adverse acts

a respondent takes against a charging

party

within six months of the final

conclusion of the complaint of

discrimination or retaliation as well

like in the case of direct evidence this

means that a respondent will have to

prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that its actions were not retaliatory

for the complaint filed against it

instead of the charging party having to

prove a primo fascia case in pretext

by preponderance of the evidence in

order to prevail

as an example of how the disputable

presumption works consider the following

case

a charging party filed a complaint with

the bureau alleging sex-based

discrimination against her employer

a few months after that case concluded

the charging party filed a retaliation

complaint

asserting that her employer retaliated

against her for the previous complaint

by ignoring her during staff meetings

and informing her when management was

meeting with the attorney

who represented the organization for her

discrimination complaint

because of the prior discrimination

complaint filed by charging party

and her allegation that the adverse acts

occurred within six months of the

conclusion of that first complaint

a disputable presumption was created and

respondent had the burden of proving

that its actions were non-retaliatory

even with this presumption charging

party was unable to prevail

on her retaliation complaint although

charging party felt she was being

treated differently after her initial

discrimination

complaint ultimately she was unable to

prove that the acts she asserted were

retaliatory either occurred as she

stated

or that they rose to the level of a

significant adverse act

it's interesting to note that an

individual can also file a complaint for

an adverse action taken against him or

her

because of an association with or

relation to

a person who is engaged in a protected

activity

this type of complaint is referred to as

by association complaint

although retaliation can occur in any of

the protected areas under

anti-discrimination laws discussed

earlier

the area of employment sees the highest

number of retaliation cases

year after year with that in mind

here are some suggestions for best

practices for preventing retaliation

in the area of employment first

after someone engages in protected

activity make sure there is clear

communication of expectations

don't simply expect everything to

spontaneously return to normal

second routinely educate and train your

staff on both discrimination

and retaliation third

promote a highly visible and vigorous

grievance system for retaliation claims

fourth ensure leadership commitment to

the anti-retaliation environment

fifth seek independent input and

oversight for decisions that may impact

a person that is engaged in protected

activity

when possible and six monitor the

environment

would you like to learn more about

retaliation discrimination

or the montana human rights bureau visit

our website at

www.montanadiscrimination.com

or give us a call toll free at

1-800-542-0807

you can also call us locally at

406-444-2884