Online Community

ASA Central

A dynamic online community for ASA members to exchange ideas and best practices, and connect with industry peers in their sector. Visit the site ›
Find Goods & Services

ASA Marketplace

This powerful online resource enables staffing companies to find and access industry supplier information, products and services. Visit the site ›
Daily Publication

Staffing Today Newsletter

Your #1 daily source for news about the workforce industry. With versions available to members and nonmembers. Visit the site ›
Health Care Reform

Affordable Care Act Resources for Staffing

Up-to-date news, resources, interactive tools, and more—all focused on helping ASA members comply with the ACA. Visit the site ›
Advertisers & Exhibitors

Staffing Industry Suppliers

ASA has numerous and diverse marketing opportunities available to help you reach the rapidly growing staffing industry. Visit the site ›
Exclusive Products

ASA Store

From certification packages and study guides to marketing tools and data reports, ASA resources add value to your business. Visit the site ›

Fifth Circuit Rules That Denial of Employee’s Attempt to Rescind Resignation Can Be Unlawful Retaliation

Lexology (12/15/15) Steven W. Jados

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling is unique in that it held that an employer’s refusal to let an employee rescind her resignation can be an “adverse employment action”—one of the three prima facie elements of a claim for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Porter v. Houma Terrebonne Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, the employee at issue, Tyrikia Porter, tendered her resignation and before her last day of work, testified in a grievance hearing that she had been sexually harassed by HTHA’s executive director. Management encouraged her to rescind her resignation prior to and after the hearing.

Shortly after her resignation date, Porter sent HTHA a letter asking to rescind her resignation, but the executive director refused her request. The court stressed that the context of the refusal was critical to its decision and that it was reasonable for Porter to believe that she would be allowed to rescind her resignation. The ruling is a clear warning that mixed messages from management and deviations from prior practices may give rise to unlawful retaliation claims.