Employee Rights in the Context of Workplace Investigations

Last week, a tech employee messaged me in tears. Her company was trying to force her out right before her $380,000 in stock options vested. Their tactics? Suddenly 'discovering' performance issues after 3 years of stellar reviews. Here's how we protected her equity: First thing we did: 1. Documented everything. •Screenshot every positive review •Saved every performance metric •Archived every congratulatory email •Backed up every team recognition 2. Built a paper trail. We responded to every new "performance concern" in writing: "To confirm our discussion about [issue] today, I've consistently exceeded targets as shown in [specific metrics]..." 3. Identified the pattern. The timing wasn't coincidental: •"Issues" appeared 90 days before vesting •Previously undocumented concerns •Sudden increase in scrutiny •Rush to put her on a performance plan The result? When we presented this evidence showing clear targeting before vesting, they backed off. She got her shares. Every. Single. One. Know Your Legal Protections: Employees have legal protections against terminations designed to prevent stock vesting, though laws vary by state: 1. California: Treats equity as wages, making it illegal to fire employees solely to prevent vesting. 2. Other States: Many uphold good faith employment practices, preventing firings designed to avoid payouts. 3. State courts have awarded damages when terminations were in bad faith. Key lesson: The moment performance issues arise near vesting dates, start documenting. Your equity is a legally protected right, not a corporate favor. Remember: Companies count on you not knowing your rights or being too scared to fight back. Don't let them win. Follow for more corporate tactics exposed and how to protect yourself. #EmploymentLaw #StockOptions #WorkplaceRights Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and does not replace professional legal advice. It does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Does your business need 50,000 reasons not to scold an HR Manager for investigating sexual harassment claims (i.e., doing their job)? Yesterday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that a Pennsylvania-based construction company will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a retaliation lawsuit. According to the EEOC, a human resources manager received and subsequently investigated a complaint of sexual harassment against the company's general manager. The EEOC alleged that her investigation included interviews with women who had previously complained about the general manager. The EEOC further claimed that the complainant also reported the same conduct to the company owner. However, his investigation consisted of asking the general manager (and no one else) about the incident, who denied that it was sexual in nature. Later, the owner expressed dissatisfaction with the HR investigation and rebuked the HR Manager for investigating. He even emailed the HR Manager that the company should discipline the complainant because of her complaint. According to the EEOC, the final straw was the owner's decision to reassign the HR Manager's important job responsibilities to other employees and exclude her from company meetings. As a result, the HR Manager was compelled to resign. The EEOC alleged retaliation. Indeed, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows workers to oppose harassment in the workplace without fear of reprisal by their employers. But what about this situation in which the company is ostensibly disciplining the HR Manager for doing her job? It's harsh, but is it illegal? Most courts (but not all) say it is. It has to do with something called the "manager rule," which courts have applied in the context of retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that an employee step outside their role of representing the company to engage in protected activity. As courts have noted, "it purports to address a concern that, if counseling and communicating complaints are part of a manager's regular duties, then nearly every activity in the normal course of a manager's job would potentially be protected activity, and an otherwise typical at-will employment relationship could quickly degrade into a litigation minefield." However, some appellate courts, including the Fourth Circuit and Sixth Circuit, have distinguished FLSA and Title VII language and declined to apply the manager rule to the latter. Consequently, an HR Manager could have a tenable claim for Title VII retaliation if the company disciplined them for investigating discrimination complaints and ensuring EEO compliance. Perhaps that's why, in this case, a Pennsylvania company agreed to settle with the EEOC for $50,000, and, as a general practice, employers shouldn't discipline HR for doing its job by helping the company remain compliant with federal anti-discrimination laws. #TheEmployerHandbook #humanresources #employmentlaw

In today's episode of, "I Can't Believe Employers Still do That!" [TM pending]: Telling employees that #confidentiality of an #investigation is required, full stop, or directing employees not to talk to other employees about their experience at work. You can't do that. Under the #NLRA, non-supervisors are explicitly allowed to talk to each other about their work experiences. This includes investigations, in most circumstances. A blanket rule that would bar employees from talking about an investigation forever is unlawful. And so is a direction not to talk about any investigation (much less #discipline for divulging what was discussed in an investigation). What's more, an employer cannot require an employee to "return all documents" at the end of employment, or forbid an employee from sharing "all information." An employer can put restrictions around confidential business information and trade secrets, but that still leaves a lot that is fair game. Employees have the right to hold onto documents to gather evidence to support a charge. You can't have a rule barring that, and you can't discipline or fire folks for doing that, either. Labor board charges get filed on this stuff all the time. And that's something I can help with.

Clear communication during intake can make or break trust in the investigation process. I’ve seen it firsthand. Coming into their initial interview, complainants will often share: 👉 "I didn't get to share everything that happened." 👉“They didn’t explain how this process works.” 👉 “I’m afraid of retaliation for coming forward.” These moments remind me how critical it is to set the tone from the start. Here’s how to build trust and transparency during intake: ✅ Reassure them of their right to speak up Let complainants know they have the right to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Clearly explain who they can contact if they experience retaliation. ✅ Manage expectations about the process Lay out the basics of how the investigation will work. Share a general timeline and commit to providing updates. Transparency is key to maintaining their trust. ✅ Set clear boundaries on confidentiality Explain what information will remain private, who may need access to it, and what can’t be guaranteed as confidential. This clarity helps manage expectations later. When complainants feel informed and supported, they’re more likely to trust the process—even if the outcome isn’t what they hoped. Want more tips to improve your intake process? Check out this week's Investigative Edge. 👇 #workplaceinvestigations #hrinvestigations #humanresources #employeerelations #employmentlaw