Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty.
172 L. Ed. 2d 650, 555 U.S. 271, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 870 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII's anti-retaliation provision protects an employee from being fired for reporting discrimination in response to questions during an employer's internal investigation, as this constitutes 'opposition' to an unlawful employment practice.
Facts:
- Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (Metro) initiated an internal investigation into rumors that its employee relations director, Gene Hughes, was engaging in sexual harassment.
- During the investigation, a Metro human resources officer asked employee Vicky Crawford if she had witnessed any 'inappropriate behavior' by Hughes.
- In response to the questions, Crawford described several instances of sexually harassing behavior Hughes had directed towards her.
- Two other employees also reported that Hughes had sexually harassed them.
- Soon after the investigation concluded, Metro fired Crawford.
- Metro stated that Crawford was fired for embezzlement, but Crawford alleged the firing was in retaliation for her statements about Hughes.
Procedural Posture:
- Vicky Crawford filed a Title VII retaliation lawsuit against Metro in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted summary judgment in favor of Metro, concluding Crawford's actions were not protected conduct under either the 'opposition' or 'participation' clauses of Title VII.
- Crawford, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that Crawford's conduct did not constitute 'active, consistent opposing activities.'
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Crawford's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'opposition clause' of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect an employee from retaliation for reporting discrimination in response to questions during an employer's internal investigation, even if the employee did not initiate the complaint?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes. The 'opposition clause' of Title VII protects an employee who reports discrimination in response to an employer's internal investigation. The statutory term 'oppose' is undefined and must be given its ordinary meaning, which includes resisting or antagonizing. Crawford's description of Hughes's sexually harassing behavior was an 'ostensibly disapproving account' that constituted opposition to an unlawful employment practice. Limiting protection only to employees who initiate complaints would create a 'freakish rule' and a 'catch-22' for employees, discouraging them from participating in internal investigations for fear of reprisal. This would undermine the objectives of Title VII and the employer defense framework established in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton, which encourages employers to investigate and remedy harassment.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, but the Court's holding should not extend beyond employees who engage in purposive conduct, such as testifying in an internal investigation. While Crawford's conduct is protected, the majority's reasoning relies on a potentially overbroad definition of 'oppose' that could include silent, uncommunicated opposition. The other protected activities in the statute—making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating—all require active and purposive conduct. A more expansive interpretation could open the door to retaliation claims from employees who never communicated their opposition to management, which would lead to an increase in litigation and create difficulties in proving causation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of protected activity under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision by clarifying what constitutes 'opposition.' It resolves a circuit split, establishing a uniform standard that employees are protected when they report discrimination in response to an employer-initiated investigation, not just when they proactively file a complaint. This strengthens employee protections and reinforces the employer incentive under the Ellerth/Faragher framework to conduct thorough internal investigations, as it helps ensure witnesses can speak candidly without fear of reprisal. The ruling makes it more difficult for employers to retaliate against employees who cooperate in such investigations.
Unlock the full brief for Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty.