What happens when HR helps an employee file a workplace discrimination claim against the company that they both work for? In one such instance, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (federal appellate court deciding cases from Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) decided that an automaker’s decision to fire a human resource representative – after suspecting her of recruiting another employee to sue – was both lawful and nonretaliatory. See Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., 967 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2020). You read that correctly; now keep reading.
The Facts
In 2010, Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia (“Kia”), a Korean automobile manufacturer, employed Andrea Gogel as team relations department manager at its West Point, Georgia plant. As a key member of the HR team, Gogel’s position was highly sensitive and critical to maintaining employee relations. Gogel was directly responsible for investigating and internally resolving workplace complaints and avoiding having them evolve into EEOC charges or lawsuits.
In her role, Gogel frequently expressed her dissatisfaction with Kia’s employment practices, claiming that management harbored antiquated views toward women. In turn, Gogel reportedly exhibited a strong dislike toward the Korean management structure and “hated the Koreans.” After being passed over for promotion, on November 10, 2010, Gogel filed an EEOC charge against Kia, claiming gender and national origin discrimination. A week later, Gogel’s colleague, another Kia HR manager, Robert Tyler, filed his own charge of discrimination and retaliation. And, merely three weeks later, another Kia employee, Diana Ledbetter, also filed her own charge of discrimination.
After receiving three EEOC charges in such a short time, Kia discovered that Gogel, Tyler, and Ledbetter were represented by the same law firm. Kia also learned that Gogel and Ledbetter frequently met behind closed doors at work, multiple times a week for several hours. Based on these observations, among others, Kia became concerned that Gogel and Tyler had recruited and encouraged Ledbetter to file a charge, further believing that Gogel was spearheading a campaign against the company. Kia decided that Gogel’s suspected actions created a conflict of interest that rendered her ineffective in her role as team relations manager and terminated her in January 2011, two months after she filed her charge.
The Analysis
Gogel then sued Kia in federal court, alleging Title VII claims for sex discrimination and retaliation (for filing her discrimination charge). The court dismissed the entirety of Gogel’s claims without a trial, finding that Kia had fired her for a legitimate reason – her solicitation of a subordinate to file an EEOC charge against the company, at odds with her HR job responsibilities. Gogel appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
A well-founded legal principle is that an employer is prohibited from retaliating against an employee in reaction to that employee having opposed an unlawful employment practice. This principle is more commonly referred to as the “opposition clause.” On appeal, the Gogel Court was tasked with deciding whether, in view of Gogel’s special role and responsibilities as team relations manager, her recruitment of a fellow employee to sue Kia constituted protected conduct under the opposition clause. And, if Gogel’s actions were deemed to be protected expression under the opposition clause, the Court had to also opine whether her termination was retaliatory and thus unlawful.
In conducting its analysis, the Gogel Court observed that, in the context of a retaliation claim, an employee’s oppositional conduct is not protected if the way she has chosen to express her opposition interferes with the performance of her job, such that it renders her ineffective in her role. Here, the Court concluded that Kia had reasonably believed in good faith that Gogel had abandoned her responsibility to attempt resolution of employee internal complaints when she instead solicited and encouraged that employee to sue the company. Thus, as the Court surmised, Gogel’s actions unreasonably conflicted with the core objectives of her sensitive and highly important HR position, thereby creating questions of loyalty and effectiveness and prompting Kia to reasonably believe that it could no longer trust Gogel to do her job. In essence, Gogel’s actions were not protected under the opposition clause because that conduct unreasonably interfered with her job. As a result, the Court found that Kia did not retaliate against Gogel when it fired her for encouraging another employee to bring legal action against the company.
The Takeaway
The majority of the Gogel Court recognized that employers have a legitimate expectation of effectiveness and loyalty from their human resource professionals, particularly those charged with investigating and resolving workplace complaints. When an HR representative deviates from that role and undertakes unreasonable means – such as aiding and abetting other employees to sue the employer – the employee is not protected from termination.
However, several dissenting judges were troubled that Gogel had filed her own charge of discrimination, opining that, while Gogel’s conduct may not have been protected under the opposition clause, by filing her own charge on her own behalf, she may have engaged in protected conduct under the “participation clause” (an alternative component to the opposition clause). This observation signals that Gogel may have been able to demonstrate retaliation by the fact that she participated in filing a charge on her own behalf and was terminated very soon thereafter – the mere closeness (“proximity”) of the two events giving rise to a presumption of retaliation.
Given the diametrically opposed viewpoints expressed in this 100+ page decision, future cases bearing similar facts and circumstances will be shrewdly analyzed, bringing more close calls and uncertain outcomes. The takeaway here is that, in less obvious scenarios, employers should proceed with extreme caution and diligence when taking adverse action against managerial employees who raise internal complaints on their own behalf, while simultaneously championing the cause of other subordinates. Otherwise, employers may face retaliation claims brought under both the opposition and participation clauses.
This case was particularly unique and could have easily resulted in employer liability for retaliation, as even the Court itself was divided on the decision. We are particularly adept at avoiding and resolving workplace retaliation claims, and perhaps we can help your business avoid many of the common traps that lead to charges and lawsuits in the first place. To learn more about our expertise, consult Agenzia.
(CBLLC.6.2.2026)
Agenzia
