Why Choose Cantrell Schuette, P.A. for Your Retaliation Claim in Jacksonville, Florida?

Facing retaliation in the workplace demands experienced legal counsel. At Cantrell Schuette, P.A., our seasoned team of attorneys brings unparalleled expertise, dedication, and a history of successful outcomes to every case. Here’s why our firm stands out for retaliation claims in Jacksonville:

Distinguished Legal Team

We hire only top credentialed attorneys, who are top graduates and class leaders from prestigious law schools. Intelligence and sound judgment are essential, but diligent effort is key. Our attorneys work relentlessly to represent our clients effectively and efficiently. Many of our lawyers have received the “AV” rating from Martindale Hubbell and recognition from Super Lawyers, both peer-reviewed honors. 

Track Record of Success

Our firm’s dedication to justice is reflected in our recent successes, such as securing a significant settlement for an employee who was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing on unethical practices. This case, among others, showcases our commitment to holding employers accountable and protecting our clients’ rights.

Personalized Attention and a Client-Centered Approach

We recognize that each case is unique and requires a personalized strategy tailored to the specific details of your situation. Our client-centered approach ensures that we understand your goals and work relentlessly to achieve the best outcome, whether through negotiation or in court.

Resourcefulness and Strategic Planning

Our attorneys utilize a comprehensive array of resources and advanced legal strategies to strengthen your case. We conduct thorough investigations, engage expert witnesses when necessary, and employ cutting-edge legal tactics to build a compelling argument on your behalf.

Choosing Cantrell Schuette, P.A. means opting for a law firm that not only understands the complexities of retaliation claims but also values and vigorously defends your rights as an employee.

If you are facing workplace retaliation and seeking expert legal representation, contact Cantrell Schuette, P.A. Our team is ready to help you navigate your claim with confidence and expertise. Call us at  904-869-0992 or email coordinator@caklegal.com for a free consultation and personalized legal advice. Let us put our skills and experience to work for you.

Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Ordinance

The Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Ordinance provides additional local protections against retaliation for employees within the city. This ordinance complements state and federal laws, reinforcing the city’s commitment to fair and equitable treatment in the workplace.

Key Protections Under the Ordinance

• Broad Coverage: The ordinance covers a wide range of employment practices, extending its protections to include not just those employed by the city, but also employees working for private employers and contractors within Jacksonville’s jurisdiction.

• Prohibited Retaliation: Specifically, the ordinance makes it unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee who has opposed any employment practice made illegal by the ordinance, or who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the ordinance.

• Inclusive Practices: Employers are required to adhere to non-discriminatory practices that cover all aspects of employment, from hiring to termination, including promotion, salary increases, and other conditions of employment. The ordinance ensures that employees exercising their rights under these provisions are protected from any retaliatory actions.

• Enforcement and Compliance: The Jacksonville Human Rights Commission (JHRC) is tasked with enforcing this ordinance. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against can file a complaint with the commission, which will investigate the allegations and can impose penalties, order remedies, or take other appropriate enforcement actions against violators.

If you are facing retaliation in the workplace and believe it may be in violation of the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Ordinance, don’t hesitate to reach out for help. Contact Cantrell Schuette, P.A. at  904-869-0992 or coordinator@caklegal.com for a free consultation. Our knowledgeable employment lawyers can help you navigate both local and broader legal protections to find the best path forward in your case.

Retaliation Claims Under Federal Law and the EEOC

Retaliation under federal law is taken seriously and addresses situations where employers take adverse action against employees for engaging in legally protected activities. These activities might include filing a discrimination complaint, participating in a discrimination investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces these anti-retaliation laws, providing a necessary check on unfair employment practices.

Federal Anti-Retaliation Laws

Several federal laws include provisions that prohibit retaliation against employees. These include:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Protects against retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in proceedings under the Act.

• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): Prohibits retaliation against employees for taking action related to age discrimination.

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Bars employers from retaliating against individuals for asserting their rights regarding disability discrimination.

• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Protects employees from retaliation who call out practices that violate the law’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

• Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under the FMLA, ensuring that individuals can prioritize their health and family without fear of adverse employment actions.

The Role of the EEOC

The EEOC is instrumental in the enforcement of federal anti-retaliation laws. Employees who believe they have been subjected to retaliation can file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC then investigates these allegations to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe retaliation has occurred. If the EEOC finds evidence of retaliation, it may attempt to resolve the issue through mediation or litigation. If it chooses not to sue, it will issue a “right to sue” letter, permitting the complainant to file a federal court lawsuit.

Elements of a Retaliation Claim with the EEOC

To establish a retaliation claim with the EEOC, an individual must demonstrate the following elements:

1. Protected Activity: The employee engaged in a protected activity, such as filing a discrimination complaint, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices.

1. Materially Adverse Action: The employer took an adverse action against the employee. This does not need to be related to employment and can include any action that might deter a reasonable person from making or supporting a discrimination claim.

1. Causal Connection: There must be a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. This means showing that the adverse action occurred because of the employee’s participation in the protected activity.

Proving these elements can be challenging, as employers may not overtly admit to retaliatory motives. Often, timing and circumstantial evidence play critical roles in establishing a link between the protected activity and the adverse action.

If you suspect retaliation in your workplace, it’s crucial to get the right legal help. Contact Cantrell Schuette, P.A. at  904-869-0992 or coordinator@caklegal.com for a free consultation. Our experienced employment attorneys can help you navigate the complexities of EEOC processes, ensure your rights are protected, and assist you in achieving a just resolution to your claim.

Understanding Protected Activities in Retaliation Claims

Protected activities are an essential element of retaliation claims under employment law. These activities include any actions taken by employees to assert their rights under various discrimination and employment statutes without fear of punitive measures from their employers.

What Does “Protected Activity” Mean?

Protected activity refers to actions employees take in opposition to practices they believe to be illegal under employment law. These can include:

• Filing or expressing an intent to file a complaint against unlawful employment practices, such as discrimination or harassment.

• Participating in investigations or legal proceedings related to employment discrimination.

• Communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination or other violations of employment laws, including safety violations.

Protected activities are designed to shield employees who are willing to speak out against unfair practices, ensuring that they can engage in these activities without fear of retribution by their employer.

Understanding what constitutes a protected activity is essential, as it defines the scope of legal protections available to employees and the obligations employers have to uphold these protections without engaging in retaliation.

If you’re unsure whether your actions qualify as protected or if you’ve faced retaliation for such activities, it’s crucial to consult with legal experts. Contact Cantrell Schuette, P.A. at  904-869-0992 or coordinator@caklegal.com for a free consultation. Our knowledgeable employment attorneys can provide personalized legal advice, helping you navigate your rights and potential claims with confidence.

Understanding Materially Adverse Actions in Retaliation Claims

When discussing workplace retaliation, the concept of “materially adverse actions” is central to determining whether an employee’s rights have been violated. Materially adverse actions are any actions taken by an employer that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. This is a critical threshold in retaliation claims because it focuses on whether the employer’s action could deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.

What Qualifies as Materially Adverse?

• Examples of Adverse Actions: Common examples include termination, demotion, a significant reduction in salary or work hours, or a transfer to a less desirable position. However, materially adverse actions are not limited to these examples and can include other actions that may not seem significant at first glance but have a substantial impact on the employee’s employment conditions.

• Subtler Forms: More subtle forms of retaliation, such as exclusion from meetings, negative evaluations that are unwarranted, or the denial of training opportunities, can also qualify if they significantly impact the employee’s career prospects.

• Legal Interpretation: Courts assess materially adverse actions from the perspective of a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee. This standard helps ensure that the law covers a wide range of retaliatory behaviors that could harm an employee’s career.

When Does an Employer’s Action Rises to the Level of Materially Adverse?

An employer’s actions rise to the level of materially adverse when they result in a significant change to the employee’s employment status or when they could significantly impact the employee’s mental or emotional state to the extent that it affects their work environment. For example, if an employer’s action results in a significant decrease in an employee’s professional responsibilities, or if it isolates or consistently undermines the employee before their colleagues, these could be considered materially adverse.

If you suspect that actions taken by your employer might constitute retaliation, it’s essential to seek expert legal advice to protect your rights. Contact Cantrell Schuette, P.A. at  904-869-0992 or coordinator@caklegal.com. Our experienced employment attorneys can help you determine if what you’ve experienced qualifies as materially adverse and what steps you can take to address it.

Understanding the Causal Connection in Retaliation Claims

A fundamental element of any retaliation claim is establishing a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action taken by an employer. This connection links the employee’s engagement in legally protected behavior (such as filing a complaint or participating in an investigation) to the employer’s retaliatory conduct.

What Does “Causal Connection” Mean?

Causal connection in the context of retaliation claims refers to evidence that the employer’s adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s protected activity. A materially adverse action does not violate EEO laws unless there is a causal connection between the action and the protected activity. It’s about proving that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the decision to take an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or undesirable reassignment.

There are two separate causation standards for retaliation claims: 

• “But-for” Causation: For retaliation claims against private sector and state and local government employers, the “but-for” causation standard applies. This causation standard requires the evidence to show that “but for” a retaliatory motive, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. However, the “but-for” causation standard does not require that retaliation be the “sole cause” of the action.

• “Motivating Factor Causation: In federal sector Title VII and ADEA retaliation cases, the Commission has held that the “but-for” standard does not apply. Therefore, in Title VII and ADEA cases against a federal employer, retaliation is prohibited if it was a “motivating factor.” 

How does an Employee Prove a Causal Connection?

To demonstrate a causal connection between an employee’s protected activity and an adverse action by the employer, various types of evidence can be utilized, either individually or in combination. The key types of evidence that may support a finding of retaliation include:

• Suspicious Timing: The temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action can strongly suggest a causal link. While immediate timing is compelling, a longer interval does not rule out retaliation, especially if there are ongoing reminders of the protected activity that could provoke employer animus.

• Oral or Written Statements: Comments or remarks made by those involved in the decision-making process can be crucial. These statements might directly express retaliatory motives or demonstrate inconsistencies that suggest the stated reasons for the adverse action are pretextual.

• Comparative Evidence: Demonstrating that a similarly situated employee who did not engage in protected activity received more favorable treatment can suggest retaliation. This evidence can include disparities in disciplinary actions or performance evaluations before and after the protected activity.

• Inconsistent or Shifting Explanations: If an employer provides different reasons for the adverse action at different times or to different audiences, this inconsistency can imply that the stated reasons are pretextual. The credibility of an employer’s explanation can be further undermined if it changes in response to the evolving context of the complaint.

• Evidence of Pretext: Additional evidence that the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action is false can support a claim of retaliation. This may include situations where other employees involved in similar misconduct were not punished or where the employer fails to follow its own standard procedures in the employee’s case.

These types of evidence, particularly when combined, can allow an inference that an adverse action was taken in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Evaluating the totality of the circumstances is essential in determining whether the causation standard for retaliation is met. This approach ensures a comprehensive analysis of all relevant facts, helping to establish the necessary causal connection in retaliation claims.

What Evidence is Insufficient to Establish a Causal Connection?

Conversely, some evidence might be insufficient on its own to establish a causal connection. There are specific circumstances where such a connection does not exist, despite the occurrence of both protected activity and adverse action. These situations may include:

• Employer Unaware of Protected Activity: For a retaliation claim to succeed, it must be shown that the employer or a relevant decision-maker was aware of the employee’s protected activity at the time the adverse action was taken. Without this knowledge, there can be no retaliation because there is no intent to retaliate.
• Legitimate Non-Retaliatory Reasons for Adverse Actions: Employers may have valid, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions, which can include:

1. Poor employee performance.
2. Lack of qualifications for the position.
3. Comparative underperformance in applications or interviews.
4. Negative references.
5. Misconduct such as insubordination, unexcused absences, or dishonest behavior.
6. Economic necessity for downsizing or a reduction in force.

These reasons, if substantiated with evidence such as consistent application of policies to similarly situated employees who have not engaged in protected activities, can effectively counter a claim of retaliation.

• Evidence of Non-Retaliatory Actions Consistent Across Employees: When an employer demonstrates that adverse actions are part of a consistent pattern of behavior irrespective of whether the employees have engaged in protected activities, it weakens the claim of retaliation. This could be evidenced through documentation or witness testimony that confirms a standard operational procedure was followed.
• Adverse Action Would Have Occurred Regardless of Retaliatory Motive: In scenarios governed by the “but-for” causation standard, a retaliation claim may not succeed if the evidence shows that the adverse action would have occurred without any retaliatory intent. This suggests that while retaliation might have been a motivating factor, it was not the decisive cause of the adverse action.

In each of these situations, the burden is generally on the employer to present evidence justifying the adverse action as non-retaliatory. While the employer is not required to disprove retaliation, effectively demonstrating a legitimate reason for their actions can decisively influence the outcome of a retaliation claim. Understanding these nuances is crucial in evaluating the legitimacy of retaliation allegations and ensuring fair treatment in the workplace.

Establishing a causal connection can be complex, and proving retaliation requires a nuanced understanding of the law. If you believe you have been retaliated against, contact Cantrell Schuette, P.A. at  904-869-0992 or coordinator@caklegal.com. Our experienced employment attorneys can help you prepare your claim effectively, ensuring that you have the best possible representation for your case.