When an employee reports sexual harassment or employment discrimination at work, the law should protect them from retaliation—not reward the harasser. Unfortunately, some employers still wrongfully fire, demote, or discipline employees who speak up against harassment and discrimination. This kind of retaliation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the federal law that protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment based on race/color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability, and age. Title VII also makes it illegal for an employer to punish anyone for reporting or opposing that discrimination.
That law was at the heart of Tom Koch v. UNUM Group, 2025 WL 3124478 (9th Cir. 2025), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled that Koch presented enough evidence to take his retaliation case to trial. The case is a vivid example of what can happen when an employee does the right thing—reporting sexual harassment—and an employer retaliates instead of protecting workers.
Koch worked for UNUM Group when he reported that his supervisor, Scott Webb, was sexually harassing a coworker named Heather Schoenwald. According to the evidence, Webb had made threats that if either Koch or Schoenwald reported him, he would “make her life a living hell” and “do the same thing” to Koch if he supported her. Koch reported the harassment anyway.
Within weeks, the company launched an investigation—not into Webb, the accused harasser, but into Koch, the standup guy who reported the sex harassment. Management began looking into supposed incidents of misconduct from months earlier that had never been reported before. Less than one month after his harassment complaint, Koch was fired. The timing, the threats, and the sudden shift in the company’s focus all pointed to one conclusion: retaliation and wrongful termination.
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the evidence—including timing and internal inconsistencies—could allow a jury to find that Koch was wrongfully fired for reporting sexual harassment.
What Exactly Does Retaliation Mean Under Employment Laws?
Under employment laws, including Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), retaliation happens when an employer punishes an employee for engaging in a protected activity, such as reporting sexual harassment or discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, age, disability or other protected classes. Protected activity can include filing a complaint with HR, cooperating in an investigation, or even speaking up in defense of a coworker.
The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that retaliation claims are analyzed under the three-step McDonnell Douglas framework. First, an employee must show that:
- They engaged in a protected activity;
- They experienced an adverse employment action (like being fired or demoted); and
- There is a causal connection between the two.
The Court explained that this first step is “minimal”—employees do not have to prove their entire case at the outset. Once they meet this low threshold, the employer must then provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its actions. Finally, the employee can show that this reason was a pretext—a false excuse used to hide the real motive of retaliation.
In Koch’s case, the Ninth Circuit found that the timing of his firing—just 28 days after he reported harassment—combined with threats from his supervisor and inconsistent reasons for termination, created a strong inference of retaliation, at least enough for his retaliation claims to reach a jury.
Best Workplace Retaliation Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- What Is The Statute Of Limitations For Race, National Origin, Religion And Retaliation?
- Retaliation For Reporting? Know Your Employment Rights
- HR Professionals Can Sue For Retaliation—And Muldrow Makes It Easier To Win
What If My Employer Says They Had Another Reason For Firing Me?
Once they meet this low threshold, the employer must then provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its actions. Employers rarely admit that they retaliated. Instead, they often claim they had a different reason for firing an employee—poor performance, “policy violations,” or “attitude issues.” Under these employees’ rights laws, the employee then must show that the reason given by the employer was a pretext—a false excuse used to hide the real motive of retaliation. Pretext is established when an employer’s stated justification does not hold up under scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Koch explained that a plaintiff can show pretext in two ways:
- Directly, by showing that unlawful discrimination or retaliation more likely motivated the employer; or
- Indirectly, by proving that the employer’s explanation is “unworthy of credence” because it is inconsistent or unbelievable.
In Koch, UNUM claimed it fired the employee for violating company policies based on alleged misconduct at a karaoke event, inappropriate video calls, and being untruthful during an investigation. But as the Court noted, the “record is rife with factual disputes about these allegations and whether UNUM’s decision-makers genuinely believed them.” The supposed video evidence was conveniently corrupted, phone records contradicted the timeline, and even the company’s own witnesses gave conflicting accounts.
These contradictions created a question of fact as to whether there was pretext—an attempt to disguise retaliation as a legitimate firing. When the facts do not line up, and when an employer’s reasons keep changing or collapsing under pressure. Questions of fact are resolved by the jury, not a court as a matter of law.
The Ninth Circuit also corrected an important legal error made by the lower court: it required Koch to prove that his harassment complaint was the sole cause of his termination. That is not the law. Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Bostock v. Clayton County, an employee does not have to show that retaliation was the only reason for being fired. Instead, they must show that their protected activity was a but-for cause—meaning that if the employee had not reported harassment, the firing would not have happened.
Put simply, an employer cannot escape liability just by pointing to other supposed reasons for termination. If retaliation tipped the scales at all, that is enough. In Koch, the timing of the firing, the supervisor’s threats, and the weak, shifting explanations combined to show that retaliation was likely a but-for cause of the employee’s wrongful termination.
Best Employee’s Rights Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Employer’s Lies Are Called Pretext
- What Can I Do If My Manager Revenge Lied To HR?
- Can I Prove My Employer Lied About Why I Was Fired?
Am I Protected If I Report Harassment Or Discrimination Against A Coworker?
Yes. Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA protect all employees who oppose or report unlawful discrimination and harassment, even if they are not the direct victim. For example, a white employee is protected from retaliation arising from her report of race discrimination against a Black coworker. In Koch, the male employee reported his supervisor’s harassment of female coworker, not himself. The Ninth Circuit made clear that this still counts as a protected activity under Title VII.
Reporting or supporting a coworker who faces discrimination or harassment is protected because the law depends on employees being able to come forward. Employers cannot create an environment where silence is safer than honesty.
Koch’s supervisor threatened him for supporting the victim, saying, “If you support her, then you’re against me.” That type of threat is exactly the kind of conduct Title VII’s retaliation protections are meant to prevent. If an employer punishes an employee for helping a coworker report harassment, it is a clear violation of federal employment law—and potentially a case of wrongful termination.
Best Wrongfully Fired Attorney Blogs on Point:
- Title VII Doesn’t Protect Against All Retaliation
- You Can Win Retaliation Claims Even If You Lose Discrimination Claims
- Proving Discrimination And Retaliation Claims Under Title VII
How Do I Prove Retaliation After Reporting Sexual Harassment?
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Koch offers a clear roadmap for proving retaliation:
- Timing Matters. When a firing or demotion happens shortly after a harassment complaint, courts often treat that as evidence of causation. The Court cited previous rulings holding that a gap of less than three months—and especially one month—creates a strong inference of retaliation.
- Inconsistent Explanations Are Evidence of Pretext. If your employer’s story changes, documents conflict, or witnesses contradict each other, those inconsistencies can prove that the stated reason is false.
- You Do Not Have To Show Retaliation Was The Only Cause. The Court corrected the district court’s mistake, emphasizing that under Supreme Court precedent, retaliation only needs to be a but-for cause of termination—not the sole reason. If you would not have been fired but for your report, that is enough.
Best Sexual Harassment Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Is It Illegal For My Job To Retaliate Against Me For Reporting Discrimination And Harassment?
- How Do You Prove Causation In A Retaliation Claim?
- Can Timing Alone Prove Workplace Retaliation?
What Should I Do If I Was Fired After Reporting Sexual Harassment?
If you were wrongfully fired or retaliated against after reporting harassment, take immediate action to protect yourself. Begin by documenting everything—save emails, texts, and notes about meetings or conversations with HR or supervisors. In Koch, the evidence of threats, timing, and inconsistent stories turned the case around and restored the employee’s chance to be heard by a jury.
Next, consult with an experienced employment lawyer. A qualified attorney can help you understand your rights, preserve key evidence, and file a retaliation or wrongful termination claim if appropriate. Under Title VII, employees can seek reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and more.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal in Koch shows that even against powerful employers, employees can win when they stand up for what is right and fight back with evidence.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, is one of the largest firms in the United States dedicated exclusively to representing employees. Our entire practice is focused on employment law, which gives us the experience and resources to take on major employers in cases involving retaliation, harassment, and discrimination.
We offer a free initial consultation and a no-fee guarantee—you pay nothing unless we win. Our attorneys have vast trial experience, a history of great results, and a reputation for fighting hard for employees who have been wrongfully fired for standing up for themselves or their coworkers.
If your employer retaliated against you for reporting sexual harassment or discrimination, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today. Speak with a lawyer who will listen, care, and fight for the justice you deserve.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer:
This employee’s rights blog provides general employment law information about employee rights, employment discrimination, and wrongful termination. It should not be taken as legal advice about you being wrongfully fired. Every employment discrimination or retaliation case is different, and you should consult with a qualified employment lawyer for personalized advice about your situation. No promises are being made, and reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. This content is a legal advertisement intended to inform employees about their rights and encourage them to seek representation from the best attorney to protect those rights.