Should an HR Rep be Fired for Allegedly Helping an Employee Sue the Company? - American Society of Employers - Anthony Kaylin

Should an HR Rep be Fired for Allegedly Helping an Employee Sue the Company?

Andrea Gogel was hired in 2008 to be the manager of the Team Relations Department of Kia Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc.  During her time at Kia, Gogel heard many complaints about how women and Americans were treated at the Korean owned company. She believed she experienced similar treatment herself, and in her view, had been denied a promotion because she is a woman and an American.  She investigated these complaints and followed Kia’s procedure.   In 2009 Kia reorganized and created a new title called “Head of Department.”  She was bypassed for promotion and only men were promoted to that title.  She expressed concerns to her director, who gave multiple reasons why she was passed-over for promotion. fired file

Eventually, Gogel decided to file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge about the discrimination she had suffered.  In the meantime, two other employees filed EEOC charges.  One was her new manager of HR, who filed for other reasons, and the second was an employee in a different department, who was allegedly subjected to humiliating treatment.  Although Gogel had not discussed her EEOC charge with the employee, the employee found out about it and asked who Gogel’s attorney was.  Gogel provided the name.  As it turned out, all three had retained the same lawyer.

Kia then fired Gogel by letter, sent January 19, 2011. The letter says Kia fired Gogel because “one could conclude that [she] encouraged or even solicited [the other employees] filing of the charge” and that “[a]t the very least, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest.” The Director of HR explained that when he wrote the letter he was “totally convinced” that Gogel “had solicited and encouraged other team members to file a lawsuit against the company.” He considered this conduct to violate Gogel’s job duties as Manager of Team Relations. In light of this, he “lost total confidence and trust in her to perform . . . job duties that she was hired to do, and [he] could not continue her employment with Kia.”

Gogel got a right to sue letter from the EEOC and filed a lawsuit against the company.  Kia discriminated against her based on her gender and national origin and retaliated for engaging in protected activity. At summary judgement the trial court ruled that Kia fired Gogel for failing to perform her job duties because she allegedly helped or solicited filing an EEOC charge against Kia. Gogel appealed.

In particular, Kia acknowledged that in most circumstances assisting a coworker with filing an EEOC charge is protected activity under the opposition clause and that terminating an employee for doing so would be retaliation. However, Kia argued that when a human resource employee like Gogel helps another employee file a discrimination charge, that conduct is unreasonable and not protected activity.  However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals countered that Title VII forbids retaliation against “any . . . employee[]” when that employee has “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” by Title VII.  And just like other employees, when human resource employees “support[] other  employees in asserting their Title VII rights,” they engage in protected activity under Title VII’s opposition clause.

However, this right is not absolute for HR employees.  As the court points out, HR employees must follow established practices and procedures.  Further, the court noted that any deviation must be viewed on a case by case basis.  The court acknowledged that when the manner of an employee’s opposition “interferes with the performance of his job,” it is often unreasonable.  But while their actions opposing discriminatory practices must be reasonable, human resource employees are not compelled to “take the pro-employer side” when another employee complains of discrimination.

In the case of Gogel, she followed policy and reported her findings up the chain.  According to the court, it was the Director of HR who failed in his performance to follow-up on Gogel’s complaints and findings.  Further, the giving of the attorney’s name was de minis when it came to any deviation of internal procedures.  The court then ruled that the record shows that Kia fired Gogel for engaging in protected opposition activity, which she carried out in a reasonable manner.

A dissenting judge would have ruled against Gogel on the retaliation claim.  The judge believed that Gogel’s helping the employee “so conflicted with her essential job duties that it rendered her ineffective in her position” and cost her the opposition clause’s protection.  Further, the judge stated that “Gogel abandoned her responsibility to try to resolve employee complaints without litigation when she did the exact opposite: encouraging another employee to file a discrimination claim.”

As this case shows, being an HR professional is a very difficult.  The HR professional has to walk a fine line in an attempt to do the right thing, even if it is against the personal interests of managers or the HR professional. 

 

Source: Gogel v. Kia Motors Manufacturing of Georgia Inc., No: 16-16850 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 9/24/18), Law360 9/24/18

Please login or register to post comments.

Filter:

Filter by Authors

Position your organization to THRIVE.

Become a Member Today