Anti-discrimination laws would not be effective if employers could punish employees who complained about discriminatory practices. Therefore, Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to take an adverse action (e.g., termination, demotion, failure to promote, reduction in wages) against an employee in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity such as opposition to discrimination or participation in the complaint process.

Voluntary compliance with and effective enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes depend in large part on the initiative of individuals to oppose employment practices that they reasonably believe to be unlawful, and to file charges of discrimination. If retaliation for such activities were permitted, it would have a chilling effect upon the willingness of individuals to speak out against employment discrimination or to participate in the administrative process or other employment discrimination proceedings.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, SEC. 704. (a) States that

"…It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed, any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title."

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and other non-discrimination laws contain similar language prohibiting retaliation. Individuals who oppose unlawful employment discrimination, participate in employment discrimination proceedings, or otherwise assert their rights under these laws are protected against retaliation.

Protected activity consists of the following:

The law protects two activities: opposition and participation:
(1) opposing a practice made unlawful by one of the employment discrimination statutes; or (2) filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the applicable statute.

Opposition occurs when an individual explicitly or implicitly complains about discrimination. The manner of opposition must be reasonable and not so disruptive that it interferes with the employer's business operations. In addition, while the employer doesn't actually have to be engaged in a discriminatory practice, the charging party must reasonably believe that the employer's actions are discriminatory.

Participation occurs when an individual files a charge or testifies, assists or participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or lawsuit under the statutes enforced by the EEOC.

An employee is protected against retaliation for his or her opposition to discrimination as long as the employee has a reasonable and "good faith" belief that the offending conduct is illegal, even if it turns out that the employee was mistaken. If however, the manner in which an individual protests perceived discrimination is unreasonable or if opposition is false and malicious, the anti-retaliation provision will not apply. Otherwise, participation in the process receives absolute protection

If an employer takes an adverse action against an individual within six months after they have filed a discrimination claim or opposed discrimination, it is evidence that retaliation caused the employer's adverse action. If there is a long period of time between the protected activity and the adverse action, it is more difficult to prove retaliation.

An individual may have a claim for retaliation even if the original claim proves to be unfounded. For example, suppose an individual files a discrimination claim because they believe their employer is discriminating against them on the basis of their race by refusing to promote them. The employer fires that individual in retaliation for filing the claim. Though the court eventually rules that the employer did not discriminate in refusing to promote the employee, the employer can still be guilty of retaliation even though the employee did not succeed on the original discrimination claim.

On the other hand, the anti-retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge as long as it can be shown that the actions are not related to the worker's complaint. Opposition to perceived discrimination does not serve as license for the employee to neglect job duties. Anti-retaliation regulations balance the employee's right to complain against the employer's need for a stable and productive workforce.

Usually anti-retaliation protections are against actions initiated by the employer, but can include actions by co-workers if the employer is aware of, or should have been aware of, the conduct.

Complaints of retaliation should be filed with the agency having jurisdiction over the original complaint. That might be the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , the US Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance , or a state agency such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing .