North Carolina's Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) (Originally posted by Sean Cecil May 4, 2015)

www.edelsteinpayne.com/REDA-SeanCecil

315 Edelstein & Payne Attorneys at Law building full front building view white siding green bushes workers compensation lawyer

North Carolina's Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA)

Originally Posted by Sean Cecil May 4, 2015 (0 Comments)
The North Carolina Retaliatory Discrimination Act, commonly referred to as REDA, prohibits retaliation against workers exercising rights under a variety of laws. Originally passed in an early-90's wave of reform litigation spurred by the disastrous Imperial Food Products fire, the law bans discimination against people who have exercised or threatened to exercise their rights under the state's Workers' Compensation Act, the Wage and Hour Act, OSHA, and the Mine Safety and Health Act. REDA also protects victims of domestic violence and certain other individuals from discriminatory retaliation.
The Imperial Food Products fire, on September 3, 1991 resulted in 25 workers killed and 55 injured, in large part because fire doors were locked to prevent theft. Survivors later claimed that they were nervous about the locked doors but did not complain because they feared retaliation. REDA was enacted to alleviate those fears, and hopefully help prevent another similar tragedy.
On paper, REDA is a powerful tool for justice, because it provides a prevailing complainant with reimbursement of attorney fees, as well as the potential for treble damages for willful violations. However, some bureaucratic roadblocks exist, including a 180-day claim period and mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to suit.
Claim Requirements
To prevail on a REDA claim, a worker has the burden to prove 1) That they exercised rights specifically protected under REDA; 2) they suffered adverse employment action; and 3) the adverse employment action was taken because of the exercise of the REDA-protected rights. To prove the adverse action was because of the exercised right, an aggrieved worker must establish that the protected conduct was a "substantial factor" in the decision.
Enforcement
The North Carolina Employment Discrimination Bureau is charged with investigating REDA retaliation claims, and must issue a "right to sue" letter prior to the worker filing suit. After the right to sue letter is issued, an aggrieved worker must file a REDA lawsuit within 90 days. In rare circumstances, the EDB itself might file a lawsuit to enforce a violation; more often the EDB will apply some pressure on the employer to settle a dispute where it finds a likelihood of retaliation. Available remedies include injunctive relief (a court order prohibiting future retaliation), reinstatement to the job (which may include back pay and benefits as well as seniority rights as if the worker had never been fired), and compensation for lost wages and other economic losses. If a jury finds the employer's discrimination to be "willful" the employer might be ordered to pay triple damages. 
REDA can be a powerful deterrent for employers who might be tempted to punish workers for exercising their rights. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to prove that certain adverse employment actions are retaliatory; rarely will an employer admit to a violation, and proof can be evasive. 
If you would like to speak to a lawyer about a possible retaliation claim, schedule an appointment with one of the experienced North Carolina employment attorneys at Edelstein & Payne by calling 
(919)828-1456, or fill out the contact form on our employment law page.  https://raleighworkerscompensation.com/employment-law
_____________________________________________________________________
If you, a co-worker, friend, neighbor, family member, or a loved one was injured on the job, please know we're here to help.  We provide complimentary case evaluations for workplace accidents any where in the state of North Carolina

For Valuable Tips, Join us, Follow and Subscribe to Edelstein Payne:

Facebook:

Twitter:

Google+

Youtube:

Blogger:

Google Places:

Instagram:

Linkedin:

Pinterest:

Tumblr:

Yelp:

YP.com:

Location: 315 E Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2015 Federal Employment Law Update Published (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 19, 2015)

Image
www.edelsteinpayne.com 2015 Federal Employment Law Update Published Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 19, 2015  (0 Comments)  We just added firm partner   Vanessa Lucas '  2015 Employment Law Update manuscript from her presentation at the recent North Carolina Advocates for Justice CLE. It contains detailed review and analysis from U.S. Supreme Court and 4th Circuit rulings over the past year, and shorter summaries of rulings from other circuits.  Detailed Summary Below: On Target Disability Rights North Carolina Champions for Equality and Justice Volume 20 • Summer 2015 2015 Summer Law Interns Bring Commitment, Build Real Life Experience We are fortunate this summer to have four dynamic law school interns volunteering to help advance critical work in our target areas. While their backgrounds vary, our interns share a common interest in their commitment to disability rights and their eagerness to make an impact outside of the l...
Read more

Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/criminal-defense Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016 (0 Comments) As I am still fairly new to the North Carolina Bar and the practice of criminal defense here in NC, I was surprised to recently be in a consultation with an individual whose petty shoplifting allegation was charged as a felony because of the additional allegation that he had removed a security device.  Shoplifting in North Carolina can be charged as a felony if the value of the goods stolen exceeds $1,000.00. It can also be a felony in some other circumstances, including if the person has four or more prior convictions for larceny.  Under North Carolina General Statute Sect. 14-72.11(2), a person is guilty of a Class H felony if the person commits larceny against a merchant "by removing, destroying, or deactivating a component of an antishoplifting or inventory control device  to prevent the activation of a...
Read more

Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/employment-law Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016 (0 Comments) Long the subject of a terribly unfair rule that exempted them from such standard employment rights as overtime and minimum wage, home healthcare workers are among the worst treated of American workers. Home Healthcare workers hired through a third-party staffing agency have been exempted from those rules since 1974! The Obama administration attempted to remedy this injustice in 2013, and the result has been tied up in courts until last week, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that they would not hear further appeal (the administration's rulemaking prevailed in the court of appeals) effectively ratifying the rule. Home healthcare workers, including, nurses, certified nursing assistants, physical therapists, and others who provide services to the elderly and infirm to help keep them out of nursing homes, provid...
Read more