In the last half century or so, workers in the U.S. have seen improved working conditions through policies and laws addressing discrimination, harassment, whistleblower protection and safety violations. But when these protective measures are disregarded, enforcing them falls on individual workers who must pursue their claims through arbitration, investigations by external agencies (such as the EEOC) or litigation. Whatever the reason a worker might consider taking such actions, before filing any internal or external complaint or lawsuit -- or even threatening to do so -- there are some things to keep in mind. And the first thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of myths about what it means to sue an employer.
The first myth is that the employer is afraid of a lawsuit. Employers do not like lawsuits, but they do not fear them. If they did, the worker never would have had a legal claim in the first place. Why? Because if the employer sincerely feared a lawsuit, they would have respected the law in the first place. And not only are managers who violate workplace laws unlikely to be held accountable for their actions, there are many ways they can benefit from a lawsuit, even one their own conduct brought on.
They can benefit by finding a lawful reason to fire the complaining worker, or by providing witnesses against the complainant who are either "similarly situated" (such as members of the same protected group), or who work closely with them and are persuaded to testify against the worker. By courting these people, sympathizing with their conflicting emotions regarding the worker and providing opportunities and benefits previously withheld, the manager conditions the workforce to consider ways in which distancing from the worker, and aligning with the interests of management, are in their own interests.
Once this step is taken, greater acts of distancing -- through gossip, rumors, and shunning - make it easier for former allies and others to turn against the worker. When this happens, the manager who may have instigated the lawsuit in the first place is able to score points with higher management by demonstrating that it is "the difficult employee" -- not the manager, who is the problem, and the manager who has provided a solution -- witnesses to discredit the worker's claims.
The second myth is that once a lawsuit is filed, further adverse action will not be taken against the worker because that would be viewed as retaliation. Your employer can and will retaliate against you in a multitude of ways, many of them legal.
Federal laws protect against retaliation for certain protected acts, such as reporting sexual harassment, discrimination, and some types of "whistle blowing." But federal law also permits employers to fire such employees for legitimate reasons -- such as theft, making threats, or acts of violence.
No matter how law-abiding a worker might be, once involved in litigation against an employer, accusations of wrongdoing are likely to commence, and escalate. For that reason, by encouraging the workforce to view the litigating worker as a threat to their own livelihoods, chronically unhappy and complaining, and mentally unstable, it takes little time before gossip escalates to accusation, and the worker is accused of an escalating series of "inappropriate" behaviors and often, crimes.
Should the worker express any anger or outrage at the mistreatment they receive, that anger will be viewed as a threat. Increasingly, employers are using the slightest pretext of "threats" or accusations of theft to bring in the police and have employees publicly escorted off the premises -- a humiliating tactic that is sure to instill fear in the workforce and further erode the worker's support and reputation, regardless of whether or not there was any basis to the accusation. (And while it remains unlawful to terminate an employee for false pretext, proving pretext is difficult and the damage will have already been done.)
The third myth is that once an employer realizes they could be sued for their actions, they will obey the law. If a worker threatens to sue, or an employer receives a letter from a worker's attorney, they may well clean up their act. But chances are, every level of higher management will be alerted and go on the defense, which to their legal team will mean an offense.
They will immediately notify all coworkers that a lawsuit is pending and not to destroy any emails or other correspondence about, to or from the worker, and not to discuss the case with the worker. And when they get those memos informing them that their (potentially embarrassing) emails will end up in the hands of their bosses, those coworkers are not going to resent their bosses, they are going to resent the worker whose legal action brought it on.
At this stage, the workforce, not management, will fuel the aggression aimed at the worker. Management will encourage the workforce to keep a close eye on the worker, and document any detail, no matter how seemingly benign, that shows the worker is unstable, unproductive, or ineffective. As the workforce takes note of the severe toll on the worker who filed the complaint, they will not only alter their perceptions of the worker to justify avoiding and testifying against them, but they will also be far less likely to ever voice a similar complaint of their own in the future -- in other words, the more severe the punishment, the less likely management will have to fear future workers coming forward with similar complaints.
The fourth myth is that if a worker does sue, they can win big money, and be vindicated. If a worker does sue, and does win, they will be very, very happy. Why? Because by the time an employment case gets to the point of "winning," the worker will have spent years fighting. They will be emotionally and financially exhausted. They will have gone into great debt to pay legal costs; even if their case was litigated on a contingency fee basis, they will have had to pay a costly retainer, costs of mediations, investigations, depositions and travel expenses. And the worker will have had one heck of a time finding work, because not only will s/he be exhausted by legal battles, they will have had little time or strength to be productive in the process.
They will also be stained by no references, a record of suing an employer -- which no potential employer wants to see -- and a reputation that has been severely damaged through rumors.
And as for that big money verdict? There are caps on what a worker can get and juries are often very conservative -- many a career has been valued at less than a whiplash, because jurors like to think they would never find themselves in such a mess, and that no one should receive big money for not being able to work, when the juror may well work a lifetime for less. And anything over $150,000 is currently taxed at one-third; a whiplash settlement, however, is currently not taxed.
The fifth myth is that the case will never get to trial and will settle out of court. Most cases do settle out of court, and when they do, they either settle fairly early in the game, or right before trial. In the meantime, the employer's legal team will bank on delays to wear the worker out. Until that time, efforts to resolve the matter will be in vein -- the only early resolution once a suit is filed will likely be at terms favorable to the employer. In the meantime, the worker's work and even home computers will be subpoenaed, along with their medical records. Investigators may have monitored the worker, and contacted past employers -- who will have been told all kinds of unsavory things about their former employee -- even family members, friends and neighbors may be questioned, scrutinized and had their own reputations slandered.
Suing an employer is the last thing a worker should ever do if the aim is a successful career. But sometimes an employer goes so far, breaches so many laws and causes so much damage that a worker cannot possibly recover without a legal remedy. And if that happens, the worker must be prepared. They must safeguard against the assured betrayals from close friends and colleagues, the adversarial scrutiny of their lives and communications, and an avalanche of accusations and smears upon their professional and personal lives.
And for the employer facing potential litigation, it is far easier to resolve a conflict with a worker than it is to close ranks and destroy them. Rare is the lawsuit that an effective manager can't prevent by acting with integrity in the first place, and rare is the lawsuit that an effective employee can't prevent, by knowing when the management is just no good and it's best to walk away.