- Director reasonably believed conduct violated Title VII when it did not
- Court revived retaliation claim stemming from firing
- Dissent says minimal knowledge of law's scope required for retaliation claim
The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) - A split U.S. appeals court on Wednesday said it was reasonable for a former cloud-computing firm employee to believe that mistreatment of Philippines-based workers was unlawful even though it was not, and revived her lawsuit claiming she was fired for complaining.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not extend anti-bias protections to U.S. companies' foreign workers, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, but Viktorya Reznik had no way of knowing that when she worked as inContact Inc's director of project management.
The court in the 2-1 ruling said Reznik could pursue retaliation claims against inContact stemming from her firing even though she could not show she opposed conduct that was actually prohibited by Title VII.
Reznik claimed an inContact manager abused two Filipino workers and called them "monkeys" and "not human." She says she was fired for not being "a good culture fit" shortly after reporting the conduct to company executives.
Lawyers at Jackson Lewis who...
Read Full Story:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/retaliation-claim-doesnt-require-...