• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

What a $250K retaliation mistake looks like

Carol Warner
By: Carol Warner
  • Share on

About the Author

For nearly two decades, Carol Warner has analyzed the legal and financial realities behind workplace decisions, covering employment law, benefits, payroll and HR technology. She translates complex legal updates, regulatory shifts and vendor claims into plain language that HR teams can act on. Her focus is simple: What does this mean for employers, and what should they do next? Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Show Less
Last Updated: December 28, 2022
3 minute engagement
RetaliationMistakeLeadsToCostlyPayout

Race discrimination is bad enough, but an Oklahoma-based company recently learned the hard way that adding a retaliation mistake on top of that can lead to hefty settlements.

American Piping Inspection, Inc. has agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a race-based discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of a Black employee who was fired.

The employee worked at a company office located in Midland, Texas. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the employee was subjected to racist remarks by his supervisor, who was white. The discrimination allegedly started on the employee’s first day on the job and continued throughout his time at the company.

Among other things, the supervisor allegedly:

  • used the N-word when referring to the employee and other minority employees
  • made offensive racist “jokes” in the presence of the employee, and
  • mocked the employee for being offended.

The employee complained to the company’s vice president. Even so, the supervisor allegedly continued to use racial slurs and make racially offensive comments. In one instance at the end of a company gathering, the supervisor told racist jokes while looking at the employee and used his hand to pretend to shoot a gun at the employee, the suit claimed.

Feeling threatened, the employee said he again complained to the company’s vice president. However, no corrective action was taken, the suit alleged.

Instead, the employee said that company leaders began to scrutinize and discipline him more harshly than his white colleagues. And about a month later, he was fired.

In September of 2021, the EEOC filed a Title VII suit on behalf of the employee, alleging a racially hostile work environment. The complaint sought back pay as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

Under the terms of the settlement, American Piping Inspection, Inc. agreed to:

  • pay $250,000 to the employee
  • revise its anti-discrimination policies and distribute the updated policies to all employees and new hires
  • provide Title VII training to all managers and HR staff regarding their legal obligations to prevent, address and remedy workplace discrimination and retaliation
  • post a discrimination notice and EEO posters at all its worksites, and
  • submit periodic compliance reports to EEOC for a duration of three years.

As you know, companies cannot take an “adverse employment action” against an employee for asserting their EEO rights – which is sometimes called “engaging in a protected activity.”

But what exactly is an “adverse employment action” by EEOC standards?

Guidance from EEOC: What a retaliation mistake might look like

Unfortunately, there is no cut-and-dried list of what is — and isn’t — actionable, as the “circumstances of each case determine whether a particular action is retaliatory in that context,” the EEOC says.

However, the agency has provided examples that may be considered retaliatory “adverse employment actions,” such as:

  • work-related threats, warnings or reprimands
  • negative or lowered evaluations
  • transfers to less prestigious or desirable work or work locations
  • making false reports to government authorities or in the media
  • filing a civil action
  • threatening reassignment
  • scrutinizing work or attendance more closely than that of other employees, without justification
  • removing supervisory responsibilities
  • engaging in abusive verbal or physical behavior that is reasonably likely to deter protected activity, even if it is not yet “severe or pervasive” as required for a hostile work environment
  • requiring re-verification of work status, making threats of deportation or initiating other action with immigration authorities because of protected activity
  • terminating a union grievance process or other action to block access to otherwise available remedial mechanisms, or
  • taking (or threatening to take) a materially adverse action against a close family member (who would then also have a retaliation claim, even if not an employee).

For more info, check out the EEOC’s Facts About Retaliation.

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form

Free Training & Resources

White Papers

How Employee Spending is Changing the Benefits Landscape

Webinars

Upskill, Reskill and Retain: How to Future-Proof Your Workforce

Provided by PAYCOM

Webinars

Destigmatizing and Treating Addiction in the Workplace

Webinars

The ICE Audit Playbook: What to Do Before, During, and After a Notice of Inspection

Provided by Mitratech

SPONSORED CONTENT

HR Technology

sponsored content
The Best AI Software for HR Automation

Courtesy of G-P

Talent Management

sponsored content
Powerful Employee Retention Strategies for 2025: How to Keep Your Best People

Courtesy of PEOPLEGURU

Benefits

Health Care

Wellness

sponsored content
Proven Results: 5 Ways Teladoc Health Chronic Condition Management Transforms HR Outcomes

Courtesy of TELADOC HEALTH

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
Bias claim against C-suite shows need for company-wide training: $85K payout

In this case, the EEOC sued on behalf of three Hispanic women who alleged that two C-suite executives in Texas created a hostile work envir...

  • Employment Law
Non-Compete Agreement Ban: What The Latest Court Ruling Means

A second federal district court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the FTC’s pending ban on non-compete agreements, finding that t...

  • Employment Law
Black Lives Matter Dispute: New Court Ruling Backs Employer

How far can HR go to regulate employee messages on work uniforms? A new federal appeals court decision on a Black Lives Matter (BLM) contro...

  • Employment Law
New Supreme Court Ruling Expands Presidential Power: What HR Needs to Know

HR leaders don’t have the luxury of rewriting their compliance strategy every four years. A recent Supreme Court ruling raises new qu...

  • Employment Law
  • Payroll
How Does a Clawback Clause Affect Overtime Calculations? What Payroll Should Know

Not every sign-on bonus belongs in the overtime calculation – and a recent federal case out of Virginia shows why. A fired employee fi...

  • Employment Law
Is this a racially derogatory nickname? Black worker says ‘yes’

What’s solid evidence of race bias, and what’s not? In this lawsuit, a Black worker claimed that the use of the nickname “Sly,” tog...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.