High court extends employee protection

Listen to this article

Boston (Dolan) — A worker who suffered retaliation after participating in an internal sex harassment inquiry may pursue a Title VII claim, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

Vicky Crawford was a 30-year county employee when she was interviewed as part of an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations made by another worker.

During the interview, she described incidents of egregious harassment by a director against her and other employees. The director was verbally reprimanded but not terminated.

Crawford was later placed on administrative leave and ultimately fired for irregularities in the county’s payroll office, which she oversaw.

She filed suit under Title VII, claiming she was fired in retaliation for participating in the harassment inquiry.

A federal district court granted summary judgment for the county.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the internal investigation did not constitute an “investigation, proceeding or hearing” under Title VII because it did not involve an EEOC charge. It further held that the plaintiff had not “opposed [an] employment practice” because she did not make a complaint, but merely answered questions.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and reversed.

In an opinion written by Justice David Souter, the court held that employee “opposition” to discrimination can take many forms, including answering questions.

“Countless people were known to ‘oppose’ slavery before Emancipation, or are said to ‘oppose’ capital punishment today, without writing public letters, taking to the streets, or resisting the government,” Souter wrote. “And we would call it ‘opposition’ if an employee took a stand against an employer’s discriminatory practices by not ‘instigating’ action, but by standing pat, say, by refusing to follow a supervisor’s order to fire a junior worker for discriminatory reasons.”

To hold otherwise, the opinion concluded, would have a chilling effect on workers who witness discrimination.

“If it were clear law that an employee who reported discrimination in answering an employer’s questions could be penalized with no remedy, prudent employees would have a good reason to keep quiet about Title VII offenses against themselves or against others. … This is no imaginary horrible given the documented indications that [fearful workers remain silent].”

The case is Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, No. 06-1595. Jan. 26, 2009.