Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in a defendant-employer’s favor, dismissing its former employee’s retaliation and Equal Pay Act claims. In that case, titled Burnett v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca reorganized plaintiff-Burnett’s work team in 2019, gave her 60 days’ notice to find a new position or be terminated, and assigned her a dedicated internal recruiter to assist with her job search. Other similarly situated employees received the same deal but were not assigned an internal recruiter. After receiving the 60-day notice, Burnett emailed AstraZeneca’s general counsel alleging pay inequity and retaliation. Burnett was not offered one of the few positions to which she applied, so she was terminated at the end of her 60-day notice period.
After her termination, Burnett sued AstraZeneca alleging the company terminated her employment in retaliation for her protected email complaint to the general counsel. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that “[w]hen a company tells an employee that it is going to follow specific steps regarding an employee’s termination, and then it follows the plan it outlined, courts cannot presume that the company fired the employee in retaliation for some intervening protected activity.” The Court also explained that Burnett failed to present evidence that any decisionmaker tasked with deciding who to hire for the internal positions to which she applied knew about her protected email complaint. Consequently, the Court found that Burnett could not make a claim that those hiring managers selected other candidates to retaliate against her, emphasizing that knowledge of the protected activity by the decisionmaker is necessary to establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation.
A key takeaway from the Fourth Circuit’s decision is that a plaintiff-employee must be able to show that the decisionmaker who engaged in the alleged adverse action against her knew of her protected activity to establish a claim of unlawful retaliation. Here, Burnett failed to show that any of the relevant decisionmakers who hired other candidates for the internal jobs she applied for were aware of her protected complaint to the company’s general counsel. This opinion serves as a good reminder that when receiving and investigating internal complaints of alleged unlawful activity (i.e., retaliation, discrimination, or harassment), employers should be cautious to only disclose the complaint to individuals in the company who need to know about its contents. Keeping the complaint confidential safeguards employees who do not know the complaint exists from being inappropriately influenced by the complaint or its allegations when making employment decisions that impact the complaining employee. Maintaining such confidentiality also protects the company from claims of unlawful retaliation. If your business has received such an internal complaint from an employee and you have questions about how to respond or investigate the allegations, the employment attorneys at Poyner Spruill are glad to assist.
