Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Employer Confronted with Worker "Taking A Knee"

Written on .

The controversial subject of professional football players "taking a knee" during the National Anthem has now expanded to the workplace.  In a recent case, an employer was confronted with an African-American employee protesting his employer's alleged racial mistreatment by taking a knee during a meeting.  A supervisor asked the plaintiff to step into his office following the kneeling incident.  The discussion in the supervisor's office "escalated" when the supervisor issued the plaintiff an  "official discussion," and the supervisor felt threatened and asked the plaintiff to leave, and local police were called when the plaintiff refused to leave.  The plaintiff was placed on leave without pay pending an investigation.

A federal district court in Arkansas found that the plaintiff had established a prima facia retaliation claim under Title VII, but failed to show the employer's explanation for its adverse employment action was a pretext.  While the judge found that the plaintiff's taking a knee was protected activity under Title VII, the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's hostile environment and race and age discrimination claims.  The plaintiff did not show circumstances indicating discriminatory disparate treatment, and the supervisor's alleged support of Donald Trump's comments about black people and bashing of Hillary Clinton and NFL National Anthem protestors was not enough to show pretext.  

Editor's Note: The case is Raynor v. Brennan, 2020 BL 326860 (E.D. Ark., 8/27/20.  This case is illustrative of situations in which an employee may engage in protected conduct and unprotected conduct at the same time.  In such situations, the employer must discipline an employee only for the unprotected conduct, as discipline for a protected conduct, like kneeling in the present situation, might be considered retaliation prohibited by the employment laws.  Obviously, a suspension pending investigation is a wise choice in such circumstances, giving the employer the opportunity to seek the counsel of competent labor and employment attorneys.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

Featured Federalist Article: Text Education in Muldrow v. St. Louis: The Supreme Court Just Made Title VII Cases Easier for Plaintiffs to Win

Elizabeth K. Dorminey authored another article for the Federalist Society.  Here's a quick summary of what this article, Supreme Court...
gavel

Judge Invalidates Joint Employer Rule, and Independent Contractor Rule Takes Effect

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Joint Employer Regulation, which was set to take effect March 11, 2024, was invalidated by a Te...
balance of justice statue

The Importance of Fairness in Employment to the Law and to Job Satisfaction

Some of you may have heard about disgruntled employees taping phone conversations of their discharge and mentioning them on social media ...
we the people, focus, document

Major Employers Challenge Constitutionality of Labor Act

Amazon is the most recent major employer to challenge the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRB), joining Trader Jo...
starbucks drink on a table

Starbucks' Big Change in Labor Policies

Starbucks' new public commitment to work with its union antagonists to resolve issues has been called a landmark in labor relations.  In ...
smiling blocks

Judge Orders Survey Data to Be Revealed from Employer EEO-1 Reports

Employers are supposed to file annually the EEO-1, Standard Form 100, with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  This requirement applies ...