Search results

Retaliation complaints in the workplace have increased 71 percent in the past ten years with a record high of more than 32,000 complaints filed in 2008. The purpose of this paper is to review retaliation legislation to clarify for employers and employees the protected provisions and provide guidance for complying with this important anti‐discrimination statute to aid in promoting a fair and unbiased work environment.

This paper reviews retaliation claims in cases of US employment discrimination including the central elements and covered individuals. It also reviews key recent rulings that have broadened what constitutes retaliation to better understand its impact in workforce management practices. Equity and organizational justice theories are drawn upon to address performance management and employee discipline issues that may arise in the workplace and how organizational action may be impacted by the retaliation statute.

Retaliation is often considered to be an overt act (e.g. demotion or termination) but this review demonstrates that adverse employment actions need not be overt or result from loss of job or wages by the employee. This review can be used to avoid costly litigation but also convey that retaliation statutes do not unduly influence the employer's right to discipline employees.

This paper helps practitioners and researchers better understand retaliation and its purpose in preventing unfair work practices. This historical review of retaliation should help improve employer policies and procedures as well as training efforts in complying with equal employment opportunity laws without compromising concerns related to productivity or disciplinary procedures.

The specific purpose of this paper is to research the relevant case law with regard to the legality of retaliation for workplace discrimination claims.

The methodology employed is traditional legal research and analysis.

This paper examines standards for proving retaliation, along with the impact of recent US Supreme Court decisions on employers and employees.

The research provides a framework for evaluating retaliation claims.

This research is of value to both employers and employees in deciding the standards for proving a retaliation claim.

The purpose of this study is to examine a moderated mediation relationship between customer incivility and employee retaliation.

This study tested the hypotheses using data from 459 hospitality industry employee responses. Data was collected by using Amazon’s MTurk.

The study results suggest that employee anger mediates the customer incivility and employee retaliation relationship. Further, the employee’s regulatory focus (namely, promotion and preventive regulatory focus) moderates this mediated relationship. Specifically, employee promotion regulatory focus positively moderates the relationship between customer incivility and employee anger, whereas prevention regulatory focus negatively moderates the relationship.

Extant study has not explored customer incivility and employee retaliation relationship under moderated mediation influence of regulatory focus and employee anger, respectively.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between customer mistreatment and employee retaliation. The moderating effect of employee psychological strain on the relationship between customer mistreatment and employee retaliation is also examined.

A sample of 107 contact centre customer service representatives completed a survey. Moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between customer mistreatment and psychological strain on employee retaliation.

Customer mistreatment emerged as a significant predictor of employee retaliation against the customer (customer mistreatment: β=0.252, p<0.01), providing support for hypothesis 1. Psychological strain was found to significantly moderate the effects of customer mistreatment on employee retaliation against the customer, (β=0.197, p<0.01) supporting hypothesis 2.

The results provide a greater understanding of individuals’ responses to customer incivility. Previous research has demonstrated that uncivil customer behavior leads to emotional exhaustion and absences from work within the call centre industry. Our results suggest that call centre customer service employees may also engage in retaliatory behavior when they perceive that they have been treated unjustly by customers. The positive relationship between customer mistreatment and employee retaliation against customers was stronger when employees reported high (versus low) psychological strain.

This paper aims to examine the predictors of whistleblowing behaviors by comparing the importance of a negative perception – fear of whistleblowing – relative to positive perceptions such as ethical orientation, professional identity and supervisor trust.

The proposed hypotheses were tested using relative regression analysis with data collected from 471 banking employees in nine Chinese organizations.

The findings conclude that fear of retaliation was dominant in predicting external, but not internal, whistleblowing, and the beneficial effects of positive perceptions on internal whistleblowing are contingent on employees’ fear of retaliation. Therefore, organizations should survey employees’ perceptions of whistleblowing and their company retaliation policies to accomplish the goal of promoting ethical behaviors while discouraging unethical behaviors.

The findings suggest that efforts to promote whistleblowing in organizations may be most successful if the focus is placed on deterring retaliation and highlighting for employees that they will be protected from retaliation.

The relative weights analyses suggest that fear of retaliation from whistleblowing is the dominant predictor of external whistleblowing; as fear of retaliation increases, so does the desire to blow the whistle externally.

Showcases workplace retaliation and describes this as when an employer illegally seeks revenge on an employee who has complained of discrimination or some other, allegedly unlawful, act by the employer. Gives examples of retaliation and advises on how companies should aim to avoid this. Concludes there are many resources available for businesses that need assistance in implementing a preventive retaliation policy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of problematic customer behaviors on customer service employee (CSE) attitudes and subsequent retaliation toward customers.

Data from five semi-structured in-depth interviews and a structured survey with 434 responses are used to develop and test the theoretical model. CSEs working in different call center companies serving American and European customers were approached using an established survey panel.

Results using partial least squares methodology showed that problematic customer behaviors have significant effects on emotional dissonance and drain CSEs emotionally. Negative emotional reactions are positively impacted by higher emotional dissonance and exhaustion levels and, subsequently, lead to higher employees’ retaliation.

For implications, this study provides an understanding of the relationship between problematic customer behaviors and CSEs’ retaliation. Future researchers can utilize the findings to investigate employee retaliation in other marketing employees. Limitation was use of cross-sectional data.

This paper provides call center managers with an understanding of the effects of problematic customer behaviors on employee attitudes. It discusses the need for understanding problematic customers and ways to manage the effects of such experiences. This research helps call center and customer service managers recognize the existence of problematic customer behaviors and retaliation of employees, and different levels of antecedents to such employee responses.

The study investigates an under-researched phenomenon, problematic customer behaviors. It provides evidence of relationship between problematic customer behaviors and CSE retaliation. This study is one of the few to investigate employee retaliation in services.

Based on the referent cognitions theory (RCT), individuals compare their outcomes to a given reference point. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of centrality bias in subjective performance evaluation on two employees’ work behaviors; willingness to exert work effort and retaliation intention.

A 2  ×  2 × 2 between-subject real-effort task experiment was conducted on 162 Accounting and Management students. Centrality bias and level of task difficulty were each manipulated into two groups. Meanwhile, the level of performance was divided based on the average score of the real-effort task.

The experimental data were examined using MANOVA and PROCESS macro regression. It reveals that centrality bias negatively affects willingness to exert work effort through perceived procedural fairness and positively affects retaliation intention. These findings align with the RCT in explaining the perceived procedural fairness psychological mechanism and the work behavior resulting from an unfair evaluation procedure.

This study is the first of its kind to investigate the effect of centrality bias in subjective performance evaluation on positive and negative employee behaviors concurrently, which refers to the real-effort experimental task. The study demonstrates the significant impact of centrality bias on unwillingness to exert effort and adverse behavior.

Ethics are viewed as one of the most important aspects of business and industry today. However, breach of ethical behaviour is not uncommon in an organisation. Because business and industry function in a highly competitive environment, management will often make decisions in their self‐interest rather than supporting the company’s code of ethics. When an employer complains about an illegal or unethical practice, instead of commending the employee, he or she is called a “whistleblower” and terminated. Ettorre states “The sad fact is that in today’s supposedly enlightened business world, corporate America continues to treat its whistleblowers poorly”.

Outlines the principle of retaliatory discrimination. Covers the essential elements of such a claim and the ways they can be proven. Gives details of the new Equal Opportunity Commission guidelines and proceeds to discuss the concerns of employers, such as the burden of proof, the juror’s sympathy and the associated costs of legal proceedings.