AK Webinar Recap | When Retaliation Claims Arise

In April, AK experts Charles Rodriguez, Brandon Roland, and Amanda McCollum teamed up for a live discussion to explore how retaliation claims arise in the workplace, along with best practices for addressing them effectively and confidently. The session explored how retaliation claims arise, where employers often misstep, and how to approach these situations with clarity, consistency, and confidence.

Didn’t catch the webinar? You can find the full recording here.

Defining workplace retaliation
Workplace retaliation occurs when an employer takes a materially adverse action against an employee because that employee engaged in a legally protected activity, such as filing a complaint, participating in an investigation, or requesting an accommodation.

Importantly, retaliation is not limited to termination or demotion. Changes to job duties, schedules, or working conditions can also qualify if they negatively impact the employee. The key question is not just what action was taken, but why it was taken. Employers can still make business decisions, as long as those decisions are not driven by protected activity.

Trends and common instances of retaliation
Retaliation claims continue to rise and are often tied to broader workplace concerns, making them a common add-on to other complaints. These claims frequently involve scheduling changes, reduced hours, or disciplinary actions that occur shortly after an employee raises a concern. Timing plays a critical role. When actions follow closely behind protected activity, they can create the appearance of retaliation, even if the decision was legitimate.

Situations involving accommodations, leave requests, or workplace concerns are particularly sensitive, as they can increase the likelihood of inconsistent or reactive decision-making.

Breaking down retaliation arguments
To establish a retaliation claim, three elements are typically required: Protected activity, an adverse action, and a connection between the two. In practice, these claims often hinge on timing and perception rather than intent.

Many issues arise from routine workplace decisions, such as performance management or policy enforcement. Risk increases when standards are applied inconsistently or when enforcement appears targeted at a specific employee following a complaint. A critical question for employers is whether the same action would have been taken regardless of the employee’s protected activity. When that answer is unclear, exposure increases.

Best practices for awareness and response
Managing retaliation risk starts with process. Even when a claim appears unfounded, it should be taken seriously and addressed promptly.

That includes conducting thorough fact-finding, documenting decisions, and separating the original concern from any subsequent employment actions. Addressing issues in real time helps establish clear timelines and reduces perceived connections between unrelated events.

Consistency and communication are equally important. Applying policies uniformly and clearly explaining decisions can prevent misunderstandings from escalating. In many cases, how an issue is handled matters just as much as the outcome.

The session also addressed practical questions around layoffs during protected leave, the role of seniority in employment decisions, and how retaliation considerations apply to independent contractors and arbitration agreements.

View the webinar recording here and plan for about 40 minutes to fully engage with the discussion.