Policy required document Workplace
Anti-Retaliation Policy
An anti-retaliation policy tells employees that raising a concern, filing a complaint, asking for leave or an accommodation, or taking part in an investigation will not be punished, says who to tell if it happens, and commits the employer to look into it. No federal statute requires the document by name.
It ranks first among the policies on this site for a plain reason: retaliation is the single most common employment claim in the United States and has been for more than a decade. In fiscal year 2025 the EEOC received 88,201 charges, and 54,350 of them, 61.6 percent, alleged retaliation, up from 42,301 the year before (EEOC Table E1a).
A retaliation claim does not need the original complaint to have been right. It only needs an adverse action after a protected act, close enough in time to look connected.
The policy is the employer's evidence that the adverse action was not connected. The Supreme Court set the standard in Burlington Northern v. White (2006): any action that might dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining counts, not only firing or demotion, so schedule changes, reassignments and exclusion from meetings are all in scope.
A written policy that names those examples, gives more than one reporting route, and requires that discipline after a complaint be reviewed by someone other than the complained-about manager is what an investigator or a jury is shown.
Insurer claims data gives the scale for a small business: Hiscox found 10.5 percent of US companies faced an employment charge in 2016, and among 1,214 closed claims from businesses under 500 employees, 24 percent produced defense and settlement costs averaging $160,000.
The federal courts recorded 14,540 new employment civil rights cases in the year to September 30, 2025 (Table C-2).
Obligation ledger
Who requires it, and what each one says.
| Source | Applies when | What it requires | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, anti-retaliation provision 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) | Employers with 15 or more employees | Prohibits discriminating against an employee because they opposed an unlawful practice or made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in an investigation or proceeding. The statute prohibits the conduct; it does not require a document. The document is how the employer proves compliance. | Implied |
| Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway v. White 548 U.S. 53 (2006) | Any Title VII retaliation claim | Retaliation covers any employer action that might well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge, which reaches beyond hiring, firing and pay. A policy that lists the covered actions and routes complaints away from the accused manager is the practical response. | Implied |
| California Fair Employment and Housing Council regulations 2 CCR 11023(b)(10) | California employers with five or more employees | The written harassment policy must state that employees will not be retaliated against for lodging a complaint or participating in an investigation. Legally required as content, inside the harassment policy. | Mandatory |
| Sarbanes-Oxley Act, employee protection 18 U.S.C. 1514A | Publicly traded companies and their contractors and subsidiaries | Prohibits retaliation against employees who report securities fraud or shareholder fraud; audit committees must have a confidential reporting channel (15 U.S.C. 78j-1(m)(4)). The policy documents the channel. | Mandatory |
Required sections
- Statement that retaliation for a protected activity is prohibited, with the activities listed: complaints of discrimination or harassment, requests for leave or accommodation, wage complaints, safety reports, participation in an investigation, and lawful off-duty conduct where state law protects it
- What counts as retaliation, in examples, including the non-obvious ones: schedule changes, reassignment, exclusion, increased scrutiny, negative references (Burlington Northern v. White)
- At least two reporting routes so that no employee has to report to the person they are complaining about
- A commitment to investigate, with confidentiality to the extent possible
- A rule that discipline or adverse action against someone who has recently made a complaint is reviewed by HR or a manager outside the chain before it takes effect
- Consequences for anyone found to have retaliated
- A statement that the policy applies to supervisors, coworkers and third parties
- Reference to the harassment policy, the whistleblower channel and any state notices, so the documents agree with each other
What the examiner asks for
What changed
Change log.
Frameworks
Where this document is required.
Need a hand implementing it?
Find a Consultant for Anti-Retaliation Policy
Tell us what you need done and we will point you to firms that do this work. Your details go to a firm only when you choose it.
From the publisher
Manage This Document in AllyMatter
Route it for approval, keep every version, and record a named acknowledgment from everyone who has to read it.
Questions
What people ask.
Is a separate anti-retaliation policy required, or is a paragraph in the harassment policy enough?
California and New York only require the statement inside the harassment policy. A separate document is not required anywhere. Employers write one because retaliation claims attach to leave, accommodation, wage and safety complaints as well as harassment, and one policy covering all of them is easier to prove than five paragraphs in five places.
Why is retaliation the most common charge?
Because it can succeed even when the original complaint fails. An employee who complained about something that was not unlawful is still protected from being punished for complaining. In fiscal year 2025, 61.6 percent of EEOC charges included a retaliation claim.
What does the policy actually change in day-to-day management?
The review step. Discipline, a schedule change or a reassignment that lands within a few months of a complaint gets a second set of eyes before it happens, and the reason is written down. That record is what separates a defensible decision from a retaliation claim.
Does it cover complaints made to a government agency?
Yes. Filing with the EEOC, a state agency, OSHA or the Labor Department is protected activity under the relevant statute. The policy should say so.
Sources
42 U.S.C. 2000e-3, Title VII unlawful employment practices, including retaliation (Cornell LII)Burlington Northern v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (Cornell LII)2 CCR 11023 (Cornell LII)EEOC Table E1f, Retaliation-Based Charge Receipts and Resolutions, FY 1992 to FY 2025EEOC Table E1a, Charge Receipts by Basis or Statute, FY 1997 to FY 2025Table C-2, U.S. District Courts civil cases commenced by nature of suit, 12 months ending September 30, 2025 (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts)Hiscox, 2017 Guide to Employee Lawsuits (insurer claims study; 1,214 closed claims from businesses under 500 employees)