In Collazo v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, , an employee was fired after he assisted another employee with her claim of sexual harassment. He sued alleging retaliation. The firm contended that no sexual harassment had occurred, so that it was not legally possible for him to sustain a claim of retaliation. On appeal, the court ruled:
A) against the employee, because no sexual harassment was proven, and so no claim for retaliation could be maintained
B) against the employee, because he could not prove retaliation
C) for the employee, because the public policy exception to employment at will applied
D) for the employee, because it was not necessary for him to prove a violation of Title VII in order to sustain a claim for retaliation

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court ruled in favor of the employee because it is not necessary for the employee to prove a violation of Title VII in order to sustain a claim for retaliation. Retaliation is a separate claim from the underlying discrimination claim. Even if the underlying discrimination claim is dismissed, the employee can still pursue a claim for retaliation if they can prove that they were fired or otherwise retaliated against for making or supporting allegations of discrimination. The court ruled in favor of the employee, stating that it was not necessary for him to prove a violation of Title VII (which deals with discrimination and harassment) in order to sustain a claim for retaliation. The court recognized a broader common law principle prohibiting retaliation against an employee for reporting wrongful behavior, even if the underlying behavior did not actually violate any particular law.

In Collazo V