Employees who testify in an internal investigation, an agency investigation or in court are protected from retaliation whether or not they belong to the same protected classification as the employee whose case their testimony supports.
Recent case: Tony, who is white, was a maintenance worker for Riceland Foods. He testified in an internal investigation that he had heard a supervisor, Ralph, frequently use offensive language about black employees. This included “calling them ‘n*****s,’ degrading their work, [and] saying they stunk.” When Tony asked him to stop, Ralph just said he would “treat the n*****s for what they were.”
Shortly after cooperating in the internal investigation, Tony was laid off, supposedly for budgetary reasons. He sued, alleging retaliation for his participation in the investigation.
A jury awarded him $60,000 in damages.
Riceland appealed, arguing Tony couldn’t sue because he is white.
The court disagreed. It concluded that testifying in support of a discrimination complaint by someone of another protected classification was indeed protected. Otherwise, fewer individuals would come forward. (Sayger v. Riceland, No. 12-3395, 8th Cir., 2013)
Final note: Remind everyone inthat an employee’s statement or testimony during an investigation is protected activity. Warn against any kind of retaliation, even if the internal investigation concludes there was no wrongdoing. It’s the act of testifying that matters—not whether you found the testimony convincing.
The court in this case was clear that protecting all participants encourages them to come forward.
- You can be held personally liable for wage payment errors
- Not picked for unpaid additional duties? That's not grounds for discrimination suit
- Californians trail nation in per capita EEOC charges
- Where there's smoke ... can you fire (or refuse to hire)?
- It's essential to have clear hiring and promotion criteria