Retaliation Lawsuit News: Supreme Court Rulings and Top Verdicts

Retaliation lawsuit news has dominated the employment law docket over the past two years, with a unanimous Supreme Court win for whistleblowers, a $103 million jury verdict against Liberty Mutual, a federal civil rights suit from the Justice Department, and a surge of cases brought by fired government workers. Retaliation is also the single most common basis for an EEOC charge: in fiscal year 2024 it accounted for 42,301 of the 88,531 charges filed, roughly 48 percent, marking the seventeenth straight year it has topped the list.¹ The developments below are the ones changing how these cases are brought, defended, and decided.

Supreme Court Rulings Reshaping Retaliation Claims

Murray v. UBS Securities Clears a Path for Whistleblowers

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that whistleblowers suing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act do not have to prove their employer acted with retaliatory animus.² Trevor Murray, a former UBS research strategist, said he was fired after reporting pressure to skew independent research in violation of SEC rules. A jury found for him, but the Second Circuit threw out the verdict on the theory that he had to prove UBS harbored retaliatory intent.³

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion reversed. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley burden-shifting framework, a whistleblower only has to show that protected activity was a “contributing factor” in an adverse action. The employer then has to prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have taken the same step anyway.² The ruling covers the full range of adverse actions, including demotions, transfers, and reassignments, not just firings.⁴

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Lowers the Bar on Transfers

Two months later, on April 17, 2024, the Court decided Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. The justices held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision needs only to show “some harm” to a term or condition of employment, not the “materially significant disadvantage” most federal appeals courts had been demanding.⁵

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow had been moved from a plainclothes intelligence job in the St. Louis Police Department to a uniformed patrol slot. Her pay and rank stayed the same, but she lost her FBI credentials, a take-home car, and a regular weekday schedule. Lower courts said that was not significant enough to sue. Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, said the heightened standard “adds words” Congress never put in the statute.⁶

The opinion drew a careful line. The tougher “materially adverse” standard from Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White still governs Title VII retaliation claims specifically, while the lower “some harm” threshold now applies to the separate anti-discrimination provision.⁶ In practice, the decision has made it easier for plaintiffs to survive early dismissal in cases involving lateral transfers and schedule changes, which routinely sit alongside retaliation claims. Federal appeals courts have already applied it to revive dismissed discrimination cases.⁷

The Largest Retaliation Verdicts of 2025 and 2026

$103 Million Against Liberty Mutual, Then a Reversal

In December 2025, a Los Angeles jury returned a $103 million verdict against Liberty Mutual Insurance, described at the time as the largest age discrimination verdict in U.S. history. Joy Slagel, a 30-year employee, alleged she was targeted after reporting ageist hiring practices and was fired shortly after complaining internally. The jury awarded $20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages on claims of age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.⁸ The case had already been dismissed once before an appellate court revived it in 2023.⁹

The headline number did not survive post-trial review. In May 2026, the judge struck the full $83 million punitive award, finding insufficient evidence of malice by a managing agent and calling the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages “grossly excessive.” The $20 million compensatory award remained in place.¹⁰

$41 Million for a Fired Retirement Home Whistleblower

A San Bernardino Superior Court jury awarded $41,098,250 in February 2025 in Carmell v. Janet’s Enterprises. The plaintiff said she discovered safety violations that put patients at risk, reported them, and was then driven out and fired. The verdict included $40 million in punitive damages and about $1.1 million in lost wages.¹¹

Other Awards Worth Watching

California juries produced several more large awards in 2025. Hugyetz v. Equinox Holdings ended in a $32.3 million verdict on retaliation and disability discrimination claims, and Valla v. Dignity Health brought $27.5 million for whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination.¹² In Utah, a jury in early 2026 awarded more than $5 million, including $5 million in punitive damages, to a former HR worker fired after taking part in a colleague’s harassment complaint.¹³

Federal cases have landed too. A jury in the Eastern District of California awarded former state employee Tamara Evans $8.7 million after finding she was fired from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training for telling state auditors about fraudulent contractor expenses.¹⁴ In Connecticut, a district court ordered $359,485 against the operators of a sports bar who fired employees for speaking with an OSHA inspector and asking about their pay. The ruling was described as the first to award retaliation damages under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA, with $225,000 in punitive damages and $125,000 for emotional distress reflecting the court’s view of the employer’s conduct, which included telling workers not to cooperate with federal investigators.¹⁵

Federal Government Cases in the Spotlight

DOJ Sues Hattiesburg, Mississippi

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Title VII lawsuit against the City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on behalf of Hope Chatman, a former worker in the city’s Water and Sewer Department. The complaint says Chatman reported offensive, unwelcome sexual conduct by a male supervisor and was fired in May 2021 under the stated pretext of insubordination for refusing to attend a meeting. The DOJ alleges the real reason was retaliation for her harassment complaints.¹⁶¹⁷

Federal Workers Sue Over Politically Motivated Firings

A wave of lawsuits by current and former federal employees has added a political dimension to the retaliation docket. In Fell v. Trump, a class action filed in December 2025 and amended in January 2026, workers represented by the ACLU allege that the Trump administration’s termination of employees tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion work was a political purge that violated the First Amendment, Title VII, and the Civil Service Reform Act. They are seeking reinstatement and back pay.¹⁸

Separately, 142 former career federal employees filed Mullady v. Office of Management and Budget in the District of Maryland in February 2026, arguing that their reduction-in-force terminations were politically motivated and violated the Due Process Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Privacy Act. As of June 2026, plaintiffs had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and briefing was underway, with no ruling on the merits yet.¹⁹

Ninth Circuit Vacates Injunction on Federal Union Executive Order

Federal labor unions have also alleged retaliation. They challenged Executive Order 14251, which restricted collective bargaining rights for roughly 800,000 federal civilian employees on national security grounds, as payback for the unions’ lawsuits and public criticism. In June 2025, a district court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order, finding First Amendment retaliation.²⁰

On February 26, 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated that injunction. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Daniel Bress said the executive order “discloses no retaliatory animus on its face” and that the administration would likely have issued it anyway. The court credited the government’s national security justification, pointing to OPM guidance and the text of the order.²¹ Judge John Owens concurred but warned that a fully developed factual record might produce a different result.²² The American Federation of Government Employees said it was considering en banc review while continuing to litigate the merits.²³

State and Regulatory Shifts

Florida Tightens Whistleblower Standards

Not every development favors employees. On May 28, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court issued Gessner v. Southern Company, significantly tightening the requirements for private-sector claims under Florida’s Whistle-Blower’s Act. The court held that an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s conduct actually violated a law, rule, or regulation. A good-faith belief that the law was being broken is no longer enough.²⁴

The ruling resolved a split among Florida appellate courts. Writing for the majority, Justice Couriel pointed to the statute’s plain text, noting that the legislature used the word “is” to link the employer’s conduct to a violation rather than language about a “suspected violation” used in other Florida statutes. Chief Justice Muñiz concurred in the result but questioned the majority’s reliance on hypothetical scenarios.²⁴ The practical consequence is that Florida whistleblower plaintiffs now face a higher bar at both the pleading and summary judgment stages.²⁵

Loper Bright Reaches EEOC Right-to-Sue Letters

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, has started to touch procedural rules in retaliation cases. In July 2025, a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York ruled in Prichard v. Long Island University that an EEOC regulation allowing the agency to issue “right to sue” letters before completing its 180-day investigation period could not be reconciled with Title VII’s text. The court read the statute independently rather than deferring to the agency and sent the claims back to the EEOC without prejudice.²⁶

A pre-existing circuit split already divides federal appeals courts on the validity of early right-to-sue letters, and the Second Circuit has not weighed in directly.²⁶ If the rule is widely struck down, employees could face longer waits before taking a federal retaliation case to court.

States Expanding Whistleblower Protections

Movement at the state level has largely run the other direction. California now presumes retaliation when an employer takes adverse action within 90 days of a protected report, shifting the burden to the employer. New York’s Labor Law Section 740 gives whistleblowers a two-year statute of limitations and allows punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Illinois has broadened its definition of protected reporting to include disclosures to internal compliance departments, and Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington have enacted or proposed new protections with longer filing windows and explicit coverage for remote workers.²⁷

What This Means for Workers and Employers

The combined effect of these developments is that retaliation claims are easier to bring, harder to defend, and far more expensive to lose than they were a few years ago. Protected activity covers a wide range of conduct under federal law, including reporting discrimination, participating in investigations, filing complaints, and refusing to engage in illegal conduct. The complaint does not have to turn out to be meritorious, as long as it was made in good faith.²⁸ Adverse actions include anything that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining, well beyond firings and demotions.²⁹

That dynamic is why an employee can prevail on retaliation even when the underlying harassment or discrimination claim fails.³⁰ The EEOC’s enforcement guidance tells employers to maintain written anti-retaliation policies, train managers on protected activity, and run an independent review before disciplining anyone who has recently complained.²⁸ Employment attorneys stress contemporaneous documentation of any performance issues before any protected activity occurs as the strongest defense available.³¹

1
NT Lakis. FY 2024 EEOC Enforcement Stats Show Increased Charge Filings Overall, Retaliation Most Prevalent
2
Supreme Court of the United States. Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
3
Cornell Law Institute. Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
4
Bloomberg Law. Whistleblower Risk Mitigation
5
Supreme Court of the United States. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
6
The Florida Bar. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: A Huge Win for Employees in Employment Discrimination Claims
7
Minnesota State Bar Association. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
8
HR Dive. Jury Slams Liberty Mutual With $103M Verdict After Age Bias Trial
9
Los Angeles Times. Liberty Mutual $103 Million Age Discrimination Verdict
10
Proskauer Rose LLP. Slagel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
11
Proskauer Rose LLP. Large California Verdicts
12
Top Verdict. Top 10 California Labor and Employment Verdicts
13
Virginia Lawyers Weekly. Jury Awards Over $5M in Retaliation Verdict Against Employer
14
GV Wire. She Lost Job After Talking to State Auditors. She Just Won $8.7M in Whistleblower Case
15
U.S. Department of Labor. DOL v. Milford Sports Bars LLC
16
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Lawsuit for Mississippi Woman Terminated for Alleging Sexual Harassment
17
WDAM. City of Hattiesburg Sued for Alleged Discrimination Due to Sexual Harassment Complaints
18
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. Federal Workers DEI Class Action
19
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Mullady v. Office of Management and Budget
20
Workers’ Legal Defense. Litigation Tracker
21
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump
22
Government Executive. Appeals Court Declines to Block Trump’s Anti-Union EOs
23
Federal News Network. Appeals Court Axes Injunction on Trump’s Collective Bargaining Rollback
24
FindLaw. Gessner v. Southern Company
25
Kelley Kronenberg. Florida Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Whistleblower Claims
26
Bloomberg Law. Loper Bright Fuels Debate Over EEOC Rule on Worker Rights to Sue
27
Ethico. 2025 State-Level Whistleblower Protection Laws
28
EEOC. Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues
29
Bachman Law. What Counts as Adverse Employment Action
30
SHRM. How to Curb Workplace Retaliation Claims
31
Foley & Lardner LLP. Some Useful Tips for Avoiding and Addressing Employment Retaliation Claims