The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Toyota Boshoku Jackson Tennessee, LLC, and Toyota Boshoku America, Inc., two Kentucky manufacturers of automotive products. The EEOC alleges sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
The EEOC alleges that since at least January 2021, local managers and supervisors at the two companies repeatedly demanded sexual favors from female workers in exchange for promotions and other employment benefits. Both managerial and non-managerial male employees also allegedly physically and verbally sexually harassed the women. This harassment is alleged to have included groping and insults.
The sexual harassment allegedly caused some female employees to quit and allege constructive discharge. Others claimed they faced retaliation after complaining about the behavior and were subsequently terminated.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-toyota-boshoku-sexual-harassment-constructive-discharge-and-retaliation
Commentary
A retaliation claim is a separate cause of action - often turning sexual harassment allegations from one claim to two.
A retaliation claim is distinct from the underlying harassment claim and is often easier to prove. A plaintiff does not need to prove whether the underlying claim constituted illegal harassment for the retaliation claim to succeed. A plaintiff only needs to show that they engaged in protected activity (e.g., making a complaint about sexual harassment) and experienced negative employment action as a result (e.g., termination) which can be shown, in part, by how close in time the negative action occurred.
Retaliation is a common litigation pitfall. It continues to be the most frequent charge received by the EEOC, representing 62 percent of charges in fiscal year 2025. https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement-and-litigation-statistics-0
A best practice for mitigating a retaliation risk is to closely scrutinize all negative employment actions of an employee for an extended period of time, including well after the protected activity is resolved. Legitimate business reasons for a negative employment action may be difficult to defend if they follow closely after protected action.
If a negative employment action must be taken for an employee who has recently engaged in protected activity, some of the best practices are:
· Separate the negative employment action decision-maker from the employee who first heard the employee's complaint or who is the subject of the underlying complaint
· Preserve dated records documenting business-related reasons for the negative employment action taken
· Consult with local legal counsel before following through on a negative action for an employee who has made a complaint within the recent past.
The final takeaways are that retaliation prevention does not end when a complaint is resolved. Employers should maintain ongoing oversight of employment decisions affecting individuals who have engaged in protected activity, ensure that adverse actions are supported by legitimate and consistently applied business reasons, preserve contemporaneous documentation, and obtain independent review and legal guidance when appropriate.
