Fired for Speaking Up: How to Know if It’s Retaliation

Retaliation at work is way more common than people realize. You speak up about harassment, discrimination, or a toxic environment, and suddenly your job gets harder, colder, or you get pushed out completely. A lot of people think this is just “bad luck” or “HR doing their job,” but many times it’s actually illegal.

In this episode of The Glamorous Grind, Ilona and Mila talk openly about what really happens behind the scenes when you report something at work and your employer starts treating you differently. Mila shares what she sees every day as an employment attorney, and Ilona adds her perspective on how businesses try to protect themselves and where things go wrong.

Here’s what we break down together:
- What retaliation actually looks like under California law
- Real examples of employees who were punished for speaking up
- How to tell the difference between an at-will firing and wrongful termination
- What a healthy HR response looks like versus a red flag
- What to document so you can protect yourself
- What your rights are if HR refuses to put anything in writing
- What remedies employees can pursue like back pay and emotional distress damages
- How smaller companies can defend themselves when they are wrongly accused

We also react to a classic Mad Men firing scene and talk about how often these situations still happen today.

If you’re trying to understand whether your firing, demotion, or job change was retaliation, this episode will give you clarity and real-world steps to take.

Want more glam during your grind?

New episodes every other Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and follow wherever you get your podcasts.

🎙️ Hosts: Ilona Antonyan & Mila Arutunian
📲 Follow us on IG: @glamorousgrindpodcast

Chapters

• 0:00 Retaliation Beyond Termination
• 0:27 The Mad Men Scenario Explained
• 3:31 Employers’ Duty To Protect From Clients
• 4:39 Damages, Wages, And Commissions
• 8:43 Proving Contracts And Loss
• 10:27 Reporting Rules And Notice
• 12:04 Mean Boss vs Illegal Conduct
• 14:03 Associational Disability Protections
• 16:26 Red Flags And Green Flags
• 18:00 Outside Investigators And Bias
• 19:53 “Let It Go” Pressure And Proof
• 22:23 Timeline, Evidence, And Credibility
• 23:04 Viewer Question: Position Eliminated
• 25:00 Pretext, Severance, And At-Will
• 26:23 Subscribe And Submit Questions
• 26:33 Final Advice And Documentation

Transcript

Retaliation Beyond Termination

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Retaliation doesn't necessarily have to be termination. If you get moved to a project you don't like, that's sufficient for retaliation.

SPEAKER_01 0:08

Imagine you speak up about harassment at work and a week later, you're suddenly not a good fit. As an employment lawyer, I see this all the time.

The Mad Men Scenario Explained

SPEAKER_00 0:16

You're told to let it go or that'll hurt your career. Such a red flag. Companies say they have zero tolerance for misconduct until someone actually reports it.

SPEAKER_03 0:27

I think you know that this is the way this has to be.

SPEAKER_02 1:00

What happened? Lee Gardner got drunk. And he told Harry to fire me. And then Roger got angry and he did. I think if I get away from Lucky Strike and lay low from Roger for a day or two, everything will be fine. I understand what just happened. What happened with the cut? Huh.

SPEAKER_04 1:15

The commercial's fine. Sal, something must have happened. I can't help you unless you tell me. We've had a misunderstanding. Jesus, I'm not gonna ask again.

SPEAKER_00 1:25

He initially told a coworker. The coworker fired him, then they came to the manager, and the manager substantiated that firing.

SPEAKER_02 1:34

He was drunk. And he cornered me in the editing room. Cornered you? Yes. And I backed him off. I told him I was married, and he was embarrassed and he left.

SPEAKER_04 1:53

You must have been really shocked. Believe me. But nothing happened. Because nothing could have happened because you're married. You sure you want to do that?

SPEAKER_02 2:12

Who do you think you're talking to? I guess I was just supposed to do whatever you wanted? What if it was some girl? That would depend on what kind of girl it was and what I knew about her.

SPEAKER_00 2:25

I'm speechless. I know this happens all the time.

SPEAKER_01 2:30

I mean, I feel bad for the guy because I believe him.

unknown 2:35

You people.

SPEAKER_02 2:40

I didn't do anything but turn him down.

SPEAKER_04 2:44

He's a bully. Lucky strike.

SPEAKER_03 2:58

I think you know that this is the way this has to be.

Employers’ Duty To Protect From Clients

SPEAKER_04 3:29

Give me Lee Garner Junior.

SPEAKER_01 3:31

No matter how you look at it, it's illegal under today's laws, whether or not you're an employment attorney, it just doesn't seem right. What could someone in his position do today?

Damages, Wages, And Commissions

SPEAKER_00 3:43

Call me. Really? Like, I mean, at that point, do you want to be in an environment like that? If that's the main guy who everyone reports to and he's telling you you have to sleep with a client because that client could keep your lights on, employers have a duty to protect their employees from third parties as well. That includes vendors and clients. If an employer finds out that a client or a vendor is coming on to an employee or sexually harassing them, they have a duty to step in and protect just as they would if it was an employee of theirs. So he's definitely breaking the law by, you know, not A, not protecting him, B, not investigating the matter, and C by firing him, that's whistleblower retaliation because he's making a complaint that someone came on to him. And rather than investigating it, they fire him. They fired him because this sexual harassment occurred. That's clear whistleblower retaliation, and you have wrongful termination under the law.

SPEAKER_01 4:46

So how much is this worth if you got the case today, although this was a 1960s?

SPEAKER_00 4:51

Oh, it could be worth a lot of money. Uh I mean, for sure, six figures, if not seven figures, depending on kind of what the facts show. Um, was this a one-time instance? Has it occurred before? Um, and you know, with this particular vendor or client sexually harassing other employees, and the employer did nothing to protect the employees. And then also, like, what is his salary? Um, because probably large because it seems he like he's an executive, because you also have to look at how much how much wages is he going to lose.

SPEAKER_01 5:25

Well, you talk, what about commission?

SPEAKER_00 5:26

This is probably a commission-based job. Unfortunately, you can't necessarily argue that you're going to be entitled to X amount of commissions because you haven't made the sales yet. For anything that could be, you can't really make that argument. But I mean, you can make the argument, but legally you're not entitled to commissions you would not have for sure earned. So you have the economic damages, which is the monies that they lost. That includes salary bonuses that would have been guaranteed. Bonuses that are not guaranteed, you can ask for them, but technically you're not entitled to them under the law, like commissions. Um, but then you also have benefits that you would have gotten. Um, so that's the money you're losing for however long it'll take you to find a new job. And then you look at the non-economic damages, which are going to be extensive here because the guy was sexually harassed and then the employer failed to protect him. And in order to prove that up, you have to look at um hopefully he went he goes to go see a therapist, so that all of that is documented of like what he's experiencing. Because probably in a situation like this, what I've seen is when someone is sexually harassed, they struggle to go back into the workplace after that. Um, and then they've fired for retaliation. And if they do try to go back to another job, they're highly vigilant and it causes problems in their performance.

SPEAKER_01 6:48

Um, I still have questions about the commission. Can't you show, like in this case, where he had this account that he was on, and it's perhaps been an account the firm had for a while, that based on his prior commissions received on this account and the fact that this company will remain with the firm, that he should be entitled to a commission that maybe do.

SPEAKER_00 7:12

Potentially, you make that argument. Depends on the company's policy, the commission's policy. It depends on what agreements they sign. Are they going to be stuck in the contract for a while? If they're stuck in the contract for a year and the company is guaranteed to earn X amount of dollars based on work he put in on signing the client, then you would for sure argue he would for sure be entitled to that. But if it's not clear and set in stone, then it's all kind of arguable.

unknown 7:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 7:42

So if their contract with this uh advertiser would have been entered like a year ago for the next couple of years, depends on the conditions that are involved. Obviously, terminating someone at their demand at the firm wouldn't be one of the conditions that I would expect to see in their contract. So the worst case scenario would be that if they did have an agreement for marketing with the firm for the next couple of years, is that correct that we have to fire you or we're gonna lose the account? Well, it depends. They would have a breach of contract clause for losing the income if the other company already agreed to market through them.

SPEAKER_00 8:20

It's probably a termination provision.

unknown 8:22

Yeah.

Proving Contracts And Loss

SPEAKER_00 8:22

It says that each party can, usually in those contracts, you're not really bound to them, you can exit. Generally speaking, the guy would have extensive claims. I see this often in the employment context where, you know, employees are harassed by third parties and um, you know, they often don't know that their employer does have a duty to protect them. If you're a waitress at a restaurant and you have someone coming up and grabbing you or you know, acting inappropriately towards you, and you tell your employer, I don't feel comfortable being working with this guy, even if he's a huge tipper, the employer has a duty to do something to protect that waitress.

SPEAKER_01 9:01

And telling your coworkers, but not reporting it to management wouldn't give rise to employer's duty to protect, correct? Correct.

Reporting Rules And Notice

SPEAKER_00 9:09

It has to be a supervisor. Um, unless the you can prove that the coworkers told the employer. Like if you can show that they had notice or had reason to have notice, then that's enough. So technically in writing it would be better. In writing is best. Um to, you know, and obviously to a supervisor, the report should be made to a supervisor. Best policy is always to just go to HR and make a written report. Or if you have a conversation, just follow up with an email saying pursuant to our conversation, you know, this is what happened. Oftentimes we have, you know, numerous instances of retaliation because in retaliation, retaliatory behavior isn't always just firing. Uh retaliation could be a negative write-up. Like if you make a complaint and someone, you know, your manager gives you a negative write-up, that's retaliation. If they cut your hours, that's retaliation. If they move you to a position you don't want to be in, that could be retaliation. Anything that substantially affects your terms of employment could be retaliatory behavior. Here, he made a complaint that I was sexually harassed, and that was the retaliation. But you could be retaliated against for being disabled. Like if you have a disability, I just got a case where a guy had a stroke and then two weeks later he wasn't a good fit and they fired him. That's retaliation. Even though he didn't make a complaint, the fact that he became disabled is a protected activity under California law, and he is now protected. You can't just make a complaint of someone's being mean. Like the complaint has to be of something that happened that was illegal or that you reasonably believed was illegal. Because sometimes, very often, you have situations where a supervisor is being mean or hostile, and the employee goes and makes a complaint to HR, and the supervisor is being mean to me, and then their performance starts suffering, right? Because they don't want to work under this person, and they get a write-up, and they think that the write-up is retaliatory for them making their complaint. But because the underlying complaint was not of something illegal, it was just supervisors being mean, then the write-up, subsequent write-up leading up to it, is not retaliatory under the law.

SPEAKER_01 11:30

This is a very important distinction that you've made because I think that happens frequently. Right.

SPEAKER_00 11:36

And I always have to explain that to people like your supervisor's super mean. That's wrong. He shouldn't be. It's wrong, but it's not illegal. There's a big distinction between what goes on in the workplace. Supervisors don't have to be nice. Like, that's not what the law says. They can be a-holes.

SPEAKER_01 11:54

They can be strict and they expect accountability and they have the right to manage a team.

SPEAKER_00 12:00

Right.

Mean Boss vs Illegal Conduct

SPEAKER_01 12:01

But like you said, they cannot do anything illegal that's protected.

SPEAKER_00 12:04

And unless your supervisor is being mean to you because of a protected class. If they're treating you differently, then it's discrimination. Then you do get the protections.

SPEAKER_01 12:14

And that'll be protected class based on your gender, based on your sexual orientation.

SPEAKER_00 12:20

Like if you're the only woman amongst men and he's treating you differently, that's protected. But if you know there are five other women, everyone else, you know, is getting the same treatment, men and women alike, then you don't have a protected class. I did have a case recently where a woman called me. She didn't even know she had a protected class. There's a protected class in California called associational disability. What's that? Almost no other states have it. If you have a disabled person in your family, you can take leave to take care of them. So uh, you know, God forbid.

SPEAKER_01 12:54

What if it's a grandma or grandpa that doesn't live with you?

SPEAKER_00 12:56

There are specific, you know what, under FMLA, as of I believe last year or two years ago, it doesn't have to be like a close family member. It can actually be a grandmother. You can actually take time under the law, disability leave to take care of a family member.

SPEAKER_01 13:12

I believe Like how do you prove it that they're actually taking care of that family member? Would it be doctor's notes?

SPEAKER_00 13:19

Yeah, it would be a doctor's note. Most likely you would have to present the doctor's note and apply for disability as you would for yourself.

SPEAKER_01 13:25

Oh, you would apply for disability with the state of California and they would require proof of that. And then you have to check in.

Associational Disability Protections

SPEAKER_00 13:32

But then you have a protected class. Even though you're not taking care of yourself, you're not sick, you're not disabled, you take time off under FMLA to take care of someone else, you are all all right away protected under associational disability. So if your employer discriminates against you or treats you differently because you're associated with someone who is disabled, that's sufficient to give you a protective class. So in terms of that association with someone disabled, how disabled? If it's affecting your work and your employer knows about that, um and they start writing you up for I had a woman who her daughter was autistic, heavily autistic. She had to constantly take her to doctor's appointments, um, and the employer was really angry at her for having to take time off and needing a flexible schedule and treated her badly because of it. Like that was sufficient. I mean, if you have someone who is, you know, has a walker in your family and your employer is you can't prove that they're treating you differently because of that. But if you can tie the negative treatment to uh someone who's disabled that you're associated with, that's enough.

SPEAKER_01 14:43

For red flag and green flag, here's the first scenario. You report harassment happening to someone else, then you get moved to a different, less important project.

SPEAKER_00 14:54

Red flag for sure. Because, like I was saying, participating in an investigation or reporting harassment puts you in a protected class. Another thing I was saying is uh retaliation doesn't necessarily have to be uh termination. If you get moved to a project you don't like, that's sufficient for retaliation if it's lesser, if it substantially affects your work and it's not something you want.

SPEAKER_01 15:21

What period of time after, let's say, the person submitted a complaint, would that be considered related?

SPEAKER_00 15:27

I would say usually about six months. But you know, you can make the argument regardless. You every case is so different, you have to look at the totality of the facts and circumstances. Sometimes you have a protected class, but it doesn't necessarily affect you right away. Maybe you uh report the harassment a year ago, but the investigation only happens a year later. You can still make the argument that it's related, even though a year has passed. If, you know, the supervisor finds out a year later you made the complaint. But generally you have to look at the circumstances of every specific case. But I would say usually I look if it's within the first six months, I can make the argument. So chronology matters. Yes, absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 16:10

Now, second scenario your employer immediately opens an investigation, documents it, and keeps you informed.

Red Flags And Green Flags

SPEAKER_00 16:17

Green fog. That's what the employer is supposed to do. The employer has a duty to protect its employees whenever there's a complaint, they have a duty to open an investigation, um, document everything. I would say in small companies, what I when I was representing the employers, if there was um a complaint, in small companies, usually HR is close to everyone, right? Like it's not very distinct. So it's very difficult for them to often be unbiased when doing these investigations and questioning these witnesses. Plus, if it's a small company with like 10 employees, maybe the employee won't feel as comfortable being as honest with HR. So I always recommend to take the financial risk, right? And hire an outside third-party investigator to come in, do the investigation, take the witness interviews, because that way you can prove that it's not a biased investigation. Because what I've seen happen before is in small companies, a complaint is made, an investigation is done, but HR is friends with everyone. So they do the investigation and they put, you know, the facts as they see it based on their opinions, based on their knowledge of the facts. They maybe find it unsubstantiated, but later the plaintiff's attorney argues that that investigation was biased. And when you bring in a third-party investigator, there's no way they can make that argument.

SPEAKER_01 17:39

What if you just uh receive declarations directly from the witnesses who witnessed uh whatever it may be, so that it's not written up by the HR department but comes directly from the source?

Outside Investigators And Bias

SPEAKER_00 17:52

You can ask for declarations. Unfortunately, a lot of times the witnesses, it's not black or white. It's not just witnessing, like if it's something that someone was grabbed, that's easy. That can be declarations. But most of the time, a lot of it has to do with emotions, perceptions, you know, there has to be follow-up questioning, things like that. So, in order for it to be a full and effective investigation.

SPEAKER_01 18:17

Scenario three, you're told to let it go, or that it'll hurt your career.

SPEAKER_00 18:23

Such a red flag.

SPEAKER_01 18:24

And you don't have to be a lawyer. Things and all that, right?

SPEAKER_00 18:27

I, oh my God, I hear this all the time. And it's awful. Now, in this day and age, you still hear that? I hear it all the time. I just got a case just like this where a woman was raped by a supervisor at an event, and she tried to tell her co-workers who was also a supervisor, and the coworker told her, let it go, you were both drinking, don't worry about it, just drink less. Whoa. Yeah. It's a great case. I think I'm signing it. But but like this happens all the time, especially in situations where the complaint being made is against someone of high power. Um, and it's absolutely a red flag. Um, and what it means is you have to put it in writing. You have to put it in writing. I had a case recently where um it's actually still ongoing, and and the plaintiff in that case was told to let it go. And she was told that if she didn't let it go, it would hurt her career. And she didn't let it go.

SPEAKER_01 19:27

And ultimately, I mean, how stupid it must you be to actually say that to somebody.

“Let It Go” Pressure And Proof

SPEAKER_00 19:31

They say it, but they didn't document it. Now we can't prove that that comment was ever made because everyone who's still with the company denies that they ever heard the supervisor make that comment, that it would hurt this person's career. So that's, you know, that's where the problem lies, that you can't prove that it was said. But it does, like as an employee, if you want to make a complaint, first of all, let's talk about the fact that it takes so much courage to get to the point where you're ready to make a complaint. Has to be really bad for most. Most people aren't just going around, there are people, but most people aren't just going around making complaints left and right. If they decide to make a complaint, usually there's a lot of lead up to that. That requires a lot of courage. And then if you go and you hear, don't do that, it's going to hurt your career. That is gonna deter you for sure from bringing it. And then if you're brave enough to actually overcome that, that person, if they have the balls to tell you it's gonna hurt your career, they probably will do everything in their power to hurt your career. There's a lot of retaliation that happens in those cases. And then it's very difficult to do. What industries are those normally? Honestly, the worst ones I see are uh public agencies. Public agencies, law enforcement. Those are the worst because there's so many immunities and people are so highly protected that they don't fear um being terminated.

SPEAKER_01 20:53

When you're talking about the threat of it's going to affect your career, be quiet about it. You said that it's hard to prove. Then how do you prove it other than rely on credibility?

Timeline, Evidence, And Credibility

SPEAKER_00 21:26

You ask other witnesses, um, have you ever heard this individual say this? And guaranteed, if the witnesses are still with the company at the time they're deposed or at the time of the trial, they will lie and they will say they've never heard of anything. Right. This person treated them right. And it all goes back to the um the retaliation standard of, you know, what is complained about has to be illegal. And the negative treatment of the person has to be because of the complaint, or because they participate in the investigation, and not just because they're not liked. That's the situation I'm dealing with in that case that I talked about, where the individual told her, Don't don't participate in this investigation or it will hurt your career. This person went ahead and participated in the investigation anyway. Then the supervisor began retaliating against this individual. And now the what's difficult to prove is that the negative treatment against this individual was because she participated in the complaint and not because they just didn't like each other.

SPEAKER_01 22:37

Right. Again, it comes down to chronology, what text messages, and other things happen.

SPEAKER_00 22:46

Um, and again, the problem lies in the fact that most witnesses who are still employees of any given company are going to lie and testify on behalf of the company because they need to save their own assets, they need to save their own jobs.

Viewer Question: Position Eliminated

SPEAKER_01 23:04

Today's question is from a viewer in Los Angeles. I told my HR that my boss was making sexist comments, and now they're saying my position is being eliminated.

SPEAKER_00 23:13

What can I do? If you believe you're retaliated against after making a complaint, your position is being eliminated, the best thing to do is call an attorney. I see this all the time. And um, it's called a pretextual reason. They'll say, Oh, there's a job elimination. And a lot of times they will have layoffs, right? They'll have 10 people laid off and they throw in the whistleblower or they throw in the pregnant woman, like, oh, but you're part of these mass layoffs, so it's not because you made the complaint or because you're pregnant, but because, you know, we have a business reason for these layoffs.

SPEAKER_01 23:48

And it could make sense that that would be true sometimes, right?

SPEAKER_00 23:50

Yeah, but you know, I think it's always arguable. And a lot of times what lawyers can do is come in and maybe you don't want to be a litigant in a heavy litigation, but you could also just try and get a severance and say, listen, you're laying me off, but rather than me, you know, bringing a lawsuit later, can you pay me now? And you can certainly negotiate a severance on your own behalf, but usually when a lawyer does it, it's more efficient. But definitely don't let it go. I would say that it happens all the time that employers use a layoff or a position elimination as a pretextual reason for something that's underlying actually either discriminatory or retaliatory. And I would say always fight back. Always fight back.

SPEAKER_01 24:39

When it's true. Don't make shit up. I mean, California is very litigious, and people can sue anybody for anything. So when you say always fight back, fight back if there's a good reason to fight, pick your battles.

Pretext, Severance, And At-Will

SPEAKER_00 24:54

California is an at-will employment state, right? So, and I just had a case yesterday where a woman called me and she had no case. She was laid off. It was unfair. There was no real reason for it. They don't need a reason. I was like, have you made a complaint? Do you have a protected class that you think is that issue? Just being a woman doesn't mean you're being laid off because you're a woman. But if your supervisor has made comments of like, I hate women or something about women, right? Then all of a sudden you have gender discrimination potentially. But this individual had no protected class. And her supervisor laid her off because she looked at her phone on the job. And she was like, that's unfair. I was never written up, I was never really given any warnings. They're lying that they gave me warnings, they didn't. Tough luck. Like California is an at-well employment state. I feel very bad for her, and I hope she finds a better job. But like in a situation like that, there's absolutely no case. Usually, though, if you make a complaint and you're all of a sudden your position is being eliminated. All right. Causation. You know what's glamorous? Standing up for yourself. Whether you're an employee who has been unfairly terminated or retaliated against, or an employer that has been unfairly accused.

Subscribe And Submit Questions

SPEAKER_01 26:10

Stay calm, stay focused, and protect yourself at all times. Remember, the best way to stand your ground against retaliation is to document what's going on along the way after you make a complaint.

Final Advice And Documentation

SPEAKER_00 26:23

Hit that subscribe button and make sure to follow us. And if you've got a question for Let's Get Gritty, leave it in the comments and send it to podcast at AntonianMoranda.com. Thanks for listening.

SPEAKER_01 26:36

We'll see you next time on the glamourus crime.