Context - I got “Meaningful Impact” for 2023 performance. My AIP percent rewarded percentage was significantly less than others on my team who got the same rating. Say I reported my manager to Human Resources in 2023 for doing something against the code of ethics and policy, would I have an EEOC case that my manager retaliated against me? I’m asking as employees have 90 days to file a complaint with the EEOC.
20 replies (most recent on top)
@3uhp+1swKnKg9 - I’m not going to file a complaint. Not worth it. I don’t want this manager to lose their job and I don’t want to end up on a layoff list. Thread closed
If you have a case then good luck, but without copies of your peer’s reviews you might not have enough information. Your manager should have a documented matrix that lists the goals from your review and how they contributed to aip for each teammate. If the manager has copies of this from the year prior to your complaint and is consistent with this year, it could undermine your case.
@1poc+1swKnKg9 - The variation in AIP was not in my review. I have spoken with an employment attorney and they agree I have a viable EEOC case and should win vs Truist. To this manager, you know who you are. Hope you sleep good at night :-)
Why would the manager know who filed the complaint against them? Isn't HR supposed to protect you?
@1moy - managers, by directive, have extremely limited ability to give better than Meaningful and giving less is basically putting them on a pip. If the manager has documentation explaining the variation in aip with the same rating (which should be within the review), it isn’t retaliation. If the manager is sloppy and copy & pastes the same review but gives out different aip, well that’s an issue.
Uh, some of you don’t seem to realize that salary ranges for the same job are huge and a percentage point or two on salaries that vary across more than a $50,000 range could still add up to similar total comp in many, many cases for similar performance.
I worked at two of the biggest banks, at one I never one time received a target percentage for incentive in more than a decade. At the other, the incentive approach changed every single year and you never knew what it was. So I’m skeptical that Truist is somehow off the rails on this. It’s more likely that people are making assumptions off of incomplete information.
I’d be very sure I have good clear facts before you complain again. AIP is reviewed and revised by multiple management levels before you get it.
This is why the “bigger banks” such as WF, JPMC, BoA everyone gets the same individual percent rewarded percentage for the AIP for a given performance ranking (eg Meets Expectations). They do this to prevent these types of EEOC retaliation and discrimination claims. Truist will learn the hard way and frankly I’m not surprised. Truist is a sitting duck for these types of claims
Attorney here. @1cfc+1swKnKg9 is right. EEOC requires showing a but for causation. In other words, that a single instance of but for causation resulted in the retaliatory act. If the original poster’s situation is true, they should win their EEOC case vs Truist
@1zee+1swKnKg9 - As long as the charging party can establish that “But-For” causation retaliation most likely occurred, the charging party (ie employee) will prevail. Given all employees on this manager’s team received the same performance rating (ie Meaningful Impact), causation exists that this employee received the lowest AIP on the team as a result of them reporting the manager to HR for violating the code of ethics. The manager trying to justify other reasons for this employee receiving the lowest AIP on the team (which the EEOC refers to as “pretextual explanations”) will not be enough to disprove the retaliation claim.
EEOC Enforcement Guidance - https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-retaliation-and-related-issues#A._Protected
Just know that typically you only have 180 days from the date of discrimination to file with the EEOC
Why is there this expectation that everyone with the same rating is rewarded the same? As a manager I was told that everyone should be rated as Meaningful and less than 5% should be higher than that and lower than meaningful is basically only given to those on an improvement plan.
So for my team everyone was a meaningful except one but their performance for the “meaningful” did vary so I adjusted their AIP accordingly.
No. Meaningful Impact is just average. It doesn’t mean squat. Managers are limited in how many headcount can give better than that to so they reward people with what they can (aip/lti). Retaliation or not, you got something and it is easy for the manager to justify giving you less. HR isn’t there for you, they are there to protect the bank from lawyers. Either find a new job or work harder/better/faster.
all this from the company that emailed out the NAMES, ADDRESSES, and AIP BONUS payouts of those that were laid off. there 30 people on my email that i now know where they live and how much of a bonus they got. gotta love truist :) they truly are the best bank in town.....or something like that....
Consult with an employment lawyer and go from there.
File it….now!
If that fails, name names on here. The court of public opinion will take it from there.
@aeu+1swKnKg9 - I’m absolutely telling the truth. Just pondering if I want to move forward filing the EEOC charge given the 90 day time limit. Teammates are more comfortable sharing the “percent rewarded” for the individual portion of their AIP, rather than the actual dollar amount. Given the “percent rewarded” is at the manager’s discretion, a case could absolutely be made for retaliation as previously noted.
@yee+1swKnKg9 ??? -- I don't doubt this post for a second. I've talked to others about what their pay/bonuses/ratings have been. And I've also seen large discrepancies despite similar performance/ratings.
It honestly sounds super old fashioned to say you don't believe the OP had discussions with their colleagues about their annual review and pay...
Also don’t believe it because these discussions were several months ago with your Manager.
I don’t believe this post. Sorry. I don’t believe that you and others sat around discussing what other received. This is one post I do believe is just for bait.
Yes. From a legal standpoint, while this is not considered “direct evidence” it is significant “circumstantial evidence” that your manager retaliated against you for reporting them to HR. This is illegal in regards to federal EEO laws, which the EEOC enforces.