Not long after Adrian Scott Duane posted a comment onGlassdoor.com that said his company’s managers “do not know whatthe word ‘discrimination’ means, nor do they think it matters,” the32-year-old transgender worker’s desk had been cleared and he wasfired from a Silicon Valley-based education technology company.

Related: 5 workplace protections againstdiscrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission on Wednesday filedsuit in California against IXL Learning Inc. onbehalf of Duane claiming the company violated federal law and thatthe dismissal was retaliation for the comments Duane posted onGlassdoor, the jobrecruiting website.

“While the platforms for employees to speak out againstdiscrimination are evolving with technology, the laws againstretaliation remain constant,” said EEOC trial attorney Ami Sanghvi.“The main reason to litigate is to send a strong message that wewill protect workers that engage in activities, not just throughtraditional avenues.”

The case may serve as the latest example showing how companiesand courts are grappling with protections for employees astechnology platforms evolve.

“I would expect to see an uptick in these cases given the wayworkers communicate are changing,” Sanghvi told The National LawJournal. “The way employees communicate internally and externallyand the way people organize is changing. The platforms they areusing to speak out change every day. But the law remains thesame.”

Duane filed a civil lawsuit in aCalifornia federal court against IXL earlier thisyear. A judge's ruling on May12 on procedural issues has kept the case pending.Previously, a San Francisco-based National Labor Relations Boardjudge sided with the company in thecase. The claims there, mirroring those in the EEOC’ssuit, were dismissed.

Jeff Wilson of Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, whorepresents IXL, called the EEOC lawsuit, filed in the NorthernDistrict of California, “a disappointing overreach by a federalagency based upon disproven allegations.”

Related: 5 things to keep in mind for LGBT employees andspouses

The dispute began in 2014. Duane, who had worked for the companysince 2013, had a conflict with his supervisor over the ability towork flexible hours after he returned from having a phalloplastysurgery, a female to male reassignment procedure, and claims he wasdiscriminated against by his colleagues and management for hisidentity on multiple occasions.

Duane posted a comment on Glassdoor.com in December2014 after he said his supervisor refused toaccommodate a scheduling request. Duane's anonymous review said inpart: “If you’re not a family-oriented white or Asian straight ormainstream gay person with 1.7 kids who really likes softball —then you’re likely to find yourself on the outside … Mostmanagement do not know what the word ‘discrimination’ means, nor dothey seem to think it matters.”

Related: Employers expect increases in LGBT discriminationclaims

According to court documents, Paul Mishkin, the company’s chiefexecutive officer, confronted Duane with a print-out of theGlassdoor review during a meeting about his complaints aboutdiscrimination. Mishkin then terminated him, saying the post showedpoor judgment and ethical values. Security had already cleared outhis desk and personal effects.

The EEOC alleged IXL violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 andthe Americans with Disabilities Act, which say it is illegal for anemployer to fire an employee for opposing discrimination, even whenthat activity is public. The EEOC’s lawsuit seeks lost wages,compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief designed toprevent such discrimination in the future.

Mishkin said in a statement that it has already been determinedthat Duane did not experience discrimination at the company as aresult of his gender identity. He said neither he nor Duane’smanagers were aware he was transgender and his identity was not afactor in his termination. He added that he was granted requestsfor time off or modified work schedules.

“I abhor the particularly overt and cruel marginalization thattransgendered people face in society, and I strive, to the best ofmy ability, to ensure that IXL is a company that welcomes allindividuals equally regardless of gender identity,” Mishkinsaid.

The National Labor Relations Board previously took up Duane’sclaims. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M.Etchingham called Duane’s post on Glassdoor.com “atantrum” and “childish ridicule” of his employer. The judge saidthe claim of discrimination was unsupported and he did not believethe post was meant to be part of a concerted or group action amonghis fellow employees at the company.

“Here, Duane’s posting on Glassdoor.com was not a social mediaposting like Facebook or Twitter,” Etchingham wrote his decision.“Instead, Glassdoor.com is a website used by respondent andprospective employees as a key recruiting tool to recruitprospective employees."

Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane’s website touts the NLRBwin for IXL. The firm describes the labor agency’s decision as “animportant development in the NLRB’s continued attempt to apply theact’s concerned activity protections to employee use of socialmedia and other online venues.”

David Marek of the Marek Law Firm, who represents Duane, saidhis client was pleased the EEOC took up the case. “I’m guessingthese cases will become more and more common,” Marek said. “I wouldhope that employees are given protections on those platforms asthey are given on other platforms.”