When we sat down with Lisseth Zouhbi, Chief People and Culture Officer at Child Care Resource Center, host Rebecca Taylor handed her a case most HR leaders will recognize. An employee files an internal harassment complaint against her supervisor. HR investigates, finds it unsubstantiated, and moves her to a new manager. Three months later she receives her first negative review in five years.
The new manager cites missed deadlines and quality issues. The employee files a retaliation claim. Lisseth did not pick a side. She asked for context, content, and chronology before anyone reaches a verdict, because a reactive call in either direction is how a case like this spirals.
Why the Timeline Comes Before Any Conclusion
Lisseth’s first move is one she asks of her own team regularly: lay out “the chronology of key events” for this employee. The order of events is where patterns show up. Here the order is a complaint, a closed investigation, a new manager, and a poor rating, all inside a few months.
Rebecca pressed on the short window. The employee had worked under one supervisor for five years and under the new one for three months. That leaves a fair question about how much a new manager can judge in that time.
The records come next. Lisseth would pull the prior reviews and read the written feedback, “not just the overall rating.” She wants to know whether earlier managers raised the same concerns, and whether the new one set clear expectations at the handover. Anything else that changed in the job belongs on the timeline too.
What Comparative Data Tells an Investigator
A single review proves little on its own. Lisseth would speak with peers and team members under the new manager to see whether the employee’s account matches how that manager leads. She would also check whether past cases have raised concerns about this manager’s performance management.
She would ask the manager directly whether they knew about the earlier complaint. Knowing is not wrong in itself, she said, but awareness can introduce bias into a rating. The handover matters for the same reason: what notes or guidance passed from one leader to the next. Those gaps are where implicit bias in a rating tends to hide.
The assumption to avoid runs the other way too. Lisseth cautioned against concluding that the manager is biased simply because a complaint came first. Her test is consistency: whether this employee is assessed the same way as everyone else on the team. HR has to “separate the complaint from the actual performance issues” and still address both.
The stakes are high. According to EEOC charge statistics for FY 2025, retaliation appeared in 54,350 of 88,201 charges, about 62 percent and more than any other basis. The Supreme Court in Burlington Northern v. White set the bar at actions that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” from making a charge, which is why a sudden poor performance review draws scrutiny.
What Actually Works
Make the Standard Clear Before the Rating
Missed deadlines are concrete; quality of work is not. Rebecca pointed out that the new manager may simply prefer a different way of working than the one the employee learned over five years. She wanted to know whether the manager was citing “true standards” or personal preferences.
Lisseth’s answer is to define the measure up front. Setting key performance indicators is only half the job. Each one needs a written definition of what meets, what exceeds, and what falls short, so the employee knows the outcome before the rating arrives. Ambiguity, in her view, opens the door to bias.
Treat the Close of a Case as a Checkpoint
Lisseth recommends clear records, a summary of findings, and a documented decision for every investigation. The record protects the company legally and shows the matter was taken seriously. A written investigation report is the minimum.
Closing the file is not the end. Lisseth checks back in with the parties to see whether things are moving forward or whether new issues have surfaced. She called that follow-through “more important than anything else” in a case like this one.
Build a Checklist for Every Manager Change
The fix Lisseth proposed is a transition checklist. It recaps the job description and current initiatives, explains how the employee will be measured, and sets communication expectations on both sides. Above all, it gives the employee and the new manager time to build rapport.
She would not limit it to post-investigation moves. New hires and promotions need the same treatment, regardless of why the transition is happening. Rebecca framed it as onboarding the employee to a new manager, and noted that someone three months in is often still learning.
Where Employee Relations Fits
Feedback is a shared job. Lisseth made the case that annual reviews “should not be a surprise,” and that consistent, documented check-ins are what make a review defensible. Without them, she said, a rating is hard to support once a claim arrives. Setting expectations, in her words, “works both ways.”
Rebecca added a reason to keep every claim on file, even one that does not hold up. If similar behavior shows up again with the same employee or the same manager, the record starts to reveal a pattern. Lisseth named the larger exposure plainly: “having inconsistent approaches across the organization.”
That is a records problem as much as a judgment problem. HR case management software keeps the complaint, the findings, and the later check-ins in one file, so the next investigator starts with the full chronology.
Frequently Asked Questions About Retaliation and Performance Reviews
No. Lisseth cautions against assuming bias from timing alone. HR has to test whether the review is consistent with how the manager rates everyone else, and whether the documentation supports it.
Start with prior performance reviews and the written feedback in them, not only the ratings. Then compare that history with what the new manager documented and build a chronology of key events around the complaint.
Yes. Lisseth would ask whether the manager knew about it. Knowing is not wrong in itself, but awareness can introduce bias, and the answer tells you what passed between the two managers at the handover.
Ask whether the standard was defined and shared before the rating. Rebecca raised the question, and Lisseth’s answer is to write down what meets, exceeds, and falls short for each measure in advance.
A transition checklist should cover the job description, current initiatives, how the work will be measured, and communication expectations. Lisseth would use it for every move, including new hires and promotions, not only after a complaint.
The Bottom Line for HR Leaders
Lisseth Zouhbi’s advice for anyone facing this case for the first time was short: do not jump to conclusions. “Do your due diligence,” she said, gather the facts, and assess them before deciding. In her experience, new facts often turn up along the way.
Her closing point carries past this scenario. There is no single solution to a retaliation question; the work is to read the case through the facts, not the emotion around it. HR teams that hold every manager to the same documented standard are the ones that can answer the claim when it comes.
See how AllVoices helps HR teams keep complaints, findings, and follow-up in one record when a retaliation claim lands.
