"This ruling increases the range of options for litigants to bring suits against their employers," said Steven Sheinberg, associate director of legal affairs at the Anti-Defamation League and member of the National Employment Lawyers Association. "Employers are on notice that retaliation is something that will be taken very, very seriously."

A female clerk at the United States Postal Service in Puerto Rico complained that she was discriminated against on the basis of age and claimed that her supervisors retaliated against her as a result of her initial complaint.

In an unrelated case, an African American male and former Cracker Barrel employee complained that a white colleague racially discriminated against another African American employee upon firing him. The man maintains that he lost his own job as a result of his complaint.

Retaliation complaints have greatly increased in number during the past 15 years. In fact, complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have doubled since 1993. One explanation for this could be that it often is easier for employees to prove they were retaliated against than it is to prove that they were victims of discrimination.

Sheinberg outlined a few practical steps companies can take to guard against retaliation claims:

For more information, see the Supreme Court's decisions in Gomez-perez v. Potter, Postmaster General and CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries.