Quick reminder to employers: You can’t express your displeasure with an employee by taking it out on her children.
That’s the message in a recent EEOC settlement, in which Wal-Mart Associates in Albuquerque, NM agreed to pay $87,500 for retaliating against an employee who had filed a bias complaint by refusing to hire her children.
The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that a Walmart Store in Albuquerque refused to hire Ramona Bradford’s adult son and daughter for entry-level positions because Bradford had filed a sex discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the EEOC.
The EEOC also alleged that Ramona Bradford was a victim of retaliation because her two adult children were being denied employment because of her complaints about discrimination and her charge filing.
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to monetary relief for the Bradfords, the consent decree settling the suit provides for other relief, including an injunction prohibiting retaliatory practices, training for managerial employees on retaliation, and the posting of a notice advising employees of their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws.
“This case involved an interesting and instructive fact pattern — retaliation against family members because their mother had filed a discrimination charge,” said EEOC attorney Mary Jo O’Neil. “The Supreme Court [has ruled] that employers cannot take adverse actions against employees or their relatives or others close to them because the applicant or employee did the right thing and complained of unlawful conduct in the workplace.”