Refusing to hire a litigious applicant: Is that retaliation?

AuthorHyman, Jon

If you haven't read the class-action lawsuit that Brian Flores (the fired coach of the Miami Dolphins) filed against the NFL and three of its teams, you should. It reads like a law school employment law exam question. It has allegations of systemic racial discrimination, fraud, bribery and even a smoking gun text message.

This lawsuit will likely bring much-needed change to the NFL's hiring practices. It will also likely mark the end of Flores' coaching career, a fact that he readily admits.

Flores has turned himself toxic. Yet any team refusing to hire Flores now because he sued over the NFL's discriminatory hiring practice would likely be committing unlawful retaliation. But that doesn't mean teams still won't steer clear of him.

Lawsuit = protected activity

Filing a lawsuit claiming an employment law violation is protected activity. Refusing to hire someone who engaged in protected activity is unlawful retaliation. Thus, refusing to hire someone because that person filed a lawsuit claiming an employment law violation constitutes unlawful retaliation.

Thus, if someone can prove that a prospective employer is refusing to hire him because of his prior lawsuit against a former employer, then that applicant would have a solid retaliation claim.

Hunches, however, do not equal proof. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. It may be that other applicants are more qualified (lawful). Or it may be that the employer is wary of hiring a qualified, but litigious, employee (unlawful).

Employers do not like getting sued. Therefore, it...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT