Retaliation: the risk that begins when the investigation ends

A case can close impeccably and still produce the most expensive lawsuit of all. Retaliation does not require the original complaint to have been well founded: it is enough that the person reported in good faith and that their employment situation later worsened without a sustainable explanation. And it is, by far, the hardest litigation to defend, because the chronology speaks for itself.

What it looks like in practice

It is almost never an immediate dismissal. It is a performance rating that drops without documented cause; an "operational" shift change; exclusion from a project; an adjustment of duties that hollows out the role. Each act on its own has an explanation; the sequence does not. And courts look at the sequence.

Why chronology decides

• Temporal proximity. The closer the adverse decision is to the complaint, the stronger the presumption.
• No prior trail. If "poor performance" appears for the first time after the complaint, the explanation does not hold.
• Decision-maker’s knowledge. That whoever made the decision knew of the complaint. In small organizations, it is presumed.

That is why, before any adverse decision about someone who reported in the last twelve months, the mandatory question is: can we show this decision would have been made anyway, without the complaint?

What to watch for the next six months

Case closure should trigger explicit follow-up: review of any change in the reporter’s evaluation, pay, duties or reporting line, with documented justification before it is executed. This is not overprotection; it is the only way for a legitimate decision to remain legitimate when someone reviews it with the complaint on the table.

← All insights