Legal protections are murky for whistle-blowers

The Humphries case is significant for people of color because it hinges on a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 called section 1981 that protects workers against race discrimination in particular and whether victims can use this section to sue for retaliation, Gottesman says.

Under the general anti-discrimination act that governs the workplace, known as Title VII, workers sometimes find the time limit on filing a charge has expired by the time they’re ready to come forward and find a lawyer.

Under Section 1981, if approved by the high court, workers generally would have one to three years to file a claim, rather than the 180 to 300 days allowed under Title VII. The other issue is caps on damages, which under Title VII range from $50,000 to $300,000, depending on the size of the firm. Under 1981, there are no limits on damages.

The case known as Gomez-Lopez v. Potter would most affect federal employees who believe they were retaliated against "because they opposed age discrimination or participated in an investigation of alleged age discrimination,” Gottesman explains.

“Federal employees who suffer retaliation relating to other forms of discrimination have the same rights as private employees,” he notes. “It’s only retaliation relating to age discrimination that is arguably subject to a different rule.”

If the Supreme Court finds in the government's favor, he says, federal employees will not be able to sue in such cases but will have to bring their cases in civil service proceedings "where there are no juries and the remedies are much lower.”

The court is not expected to announce its decision in the two cases until April.

In the case of Crawford vs. the Nashville metro government, a lower court held that the employee, who did not bring a charge of sexual harassment but merely confirmed an incident in an internal investigation, did not enjoy protection against retaliation.

“Retaliation in sexual harassment contexts is a frequent occurrence, because these are emotionally charged circumstances and often the supervisor has the employer’s ear and asks that the informant be fired,” Gottesman says.

If the Supreme Court sides with the employer, says Jocelyn Frye, general counsel for the National Partnership for Women & Families, it will have a chilling effect on individuals who are victims of sexual harassment.

“This has broader implications for women in the workplace,” she says, because it creates a disincentive for employees to participate in internal investigations.

So where will the court come down on the issue of retaliation against workers?"

Many labor advocates are worried, especially considering recent decisions such a case involving Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. last year, where the court limited workers’ ability to sue for discrimination.

Gottesman says he is hopeful, even though he thinks “the Court is trying to derail worker rights.”

The conservative-led court "has acted quite differently in retaliation cases," Gottesman says. "I think it reflects an antipathy, shared by the conservatives, toward those who would punish people for asserting legal rights.”

Don't miss this on MSNBC.com Pass it on: Sons of infertile men may be next The eight biggest Olympic marketing debacles Reality show judges range from wise to wacko Cosmic Log: Is this your jetpack? Forget your inhibitions: World's sexiest islands

MORE FROM CAREERS

Careers Section Front

Census faces daunting task of hiring workers Religious expression often frowned on at work Out of work professionals temp at FedEx, UPS Southwest Air tops list of best places to work Your Career: 7 job-hunting tips for the holidays Single tweet earns man a new job The states where women earn the most Next hot job? Keeping tabs on financial firms Think twice before giving the boss a gift Overqualified, but happy to have a holiday job Careers Section Front   Add Careers headlines to your news reader: