Ithaca, NY, July 8, 2009 ? Two relatively recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court raised concerns regarding retaliation, which is a fast-growing charge in discrimination cases. Participants in both the 2008 and 2009 Labor and Employment Law Roundtables, produced by the Cornell Center for Hospitality Research, discussed these cases in great detail, because the participants wondered whether the decisions would open the way for employees to win determinations that the employer retaliated against them for alleging employment discrimination. This type of case is of particular interest to lodging, food service, and other segments of the hospitality industry, because of their working conditions and their labor-intense operations.
Because of this discussion, roundtable leaders, David Sherwyn and Gregg Gilman conducted a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court decisions. Their law analysis, published by the center, finds that while the two decisions expand certain aspects of retaliation, that expansion does not necessarily mean that employees will win in court. The report, “Retaliation: Why an Increase in Claims Does Not Mean the Sky Is Falling,” by Sherwyn and Gilman, explains the implications of these two Supreme Court decisions. This new legal research is available at no charge at http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/chr/pubs/roundtableproceedings/.
“We looked at two cases that seemed to go against employers,” said Sherwyn, an associate professor of law at the Cornell School of Hotel Administration. “We have to note that retaliation was already the fastest growing cause of action in discrimination law. We agree that the decisions will probably encourage more retaliation claims, and it’s true that employers will need to be more circumspect in certain actions. But we cannot see how these rulings will automatically mean more employer losses if the case is litigated.”
Gilman is partner and co-chair, labor and employment for Davis and Gilbert LLP, which is a corporate partner of the Center for Hospitality Research. He notes that the two cases in question are Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, decided in 2009, and White v. Burlington Northern, handed down in 2006. Sherwyn and Gilman’s discrimination law analysis notes that in the Crawford case, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of the opposition clause, which is invoked when an employee resists or otherwise expresses disapproval of the actions of an employer or other employee. In the White decision it expanded the type of employer action that might be considered unlawful retaliation.