Skip navigation

Supreme Court rules on Cracker Barrel retaliation case

WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in a restaurant-related case on Tuesday that could broaden the ability of employees to sue employers on discrimination-related issues. The ruling also provides a possible means around the current $300,000 cap on punitive and compensatory damages that has been set for discrimination suits.

By a 7-2 vote, the court decided that a former assistant manager at a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store had the right under a Civil War-era law to sue the chain for alleged retaliation. Hedrick “Rick” Humphries had filed the suit against Cracker Barrel, a holding of Lebanon, Tenn.-based CBRL Group Inc., in 2003, after he was fired from his job at a unit in Bradley, Ill. Humphries said he was let go because he complained that a new general manager was making racial remarks and unfairly punishing black employees. Cracker Barrel has denied the accusation.

The court said that retaliation is another form of intentional, unlawful discrimination, which is barred by the 1866 law. That measure was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to protect the newfound rights of freed slaves.

By sanctioning the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as an additional basis for discrimination and retaliation suits, the court in effect provided employees with another route to bring their employers into court. Most discrimination cases currently are filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets a 300-day deadline for a suit to be filed after an alleged violation. It also caps punitive and compensatory damages at $300,000. The 1866 law has neither of those stipulations.

The Supreme Court's decision also was seen as opening the door to more suits that allege retaliation. Legal pundits have noted that retaliation lawsuits are often preferred by alleged victims of employment discrimination because a backlash can be easier to demonstrate in court than bias.

Humphries’ attorney said her client will now proceed with a lawsuit in district court that accuses Cracker Barrel of retaliation.

“He will go in front of a jury to decide once and for all if they did retaliate against him,” she said.

CBRL spokeswoman Julie Davis said: “While we were disappointed by this decision, we respect the court’s ruling, and we will present our arguments in the district court. This case involves a violation of company policy, and the company acted reasonably and responsibly.”

Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish