Janet Brush v. Sears Holdings Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
466 F. App’x 781 (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the 'manager rule,' a management employee whose job duties include investigating or reporting discrimination does not engage in statutorily protected activity under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision merely by performing those duties; the employee must step outside their role to lodge a personal complaint or take action adverse to the employer.

Facts:

Janet Brush was employed by Sears as a Loss Prevention District Coach, a role that involved minimizing risk and protecting company assets, including employees.
Sears placed Brush on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) early in 2007, which she completed in September 2007.
On September 15, 2007, an Assistant Store Coach, 'Mrs. Doe,' reported to Brush that she was being sexually harassed by her Store Coach.
Brush was tasked with investigating the claim. During a private interview, Mrs. Doe disclosed to Brush that she had been raped multiple times by the Store Coach but asked that police not be involved.
Brush reported the rape allegation to Sears management and urged them to contact the police.
Sears terminated the employment of the accused Store Coach but declined to involve law enforcement, citing the victim's request for privacy and the incomplete status of the investigation.
Brush continued to insist that Sears report the alleged rape to the police.
On November 20, 2007, Sears terminated Brush’s employment, citing her violation of company policy regarding sexual harassment investigations.

Procedural Posture:

Janet Brush filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued a finding of reasonable cause for her retaliation claim.
Brush filed a lawsuit against Sears Holding Corporation in the U.S. District Court, alleging unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
Sears filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Brush could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sears, finding Brush had not engaged in 'protected activity.'
Brush, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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 a manager engage in statutorily protected activity under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision when, as part of her job duties, she disagrees with her employer's internal procedures for investigating another employee's sexual harassment claim?

Opinions:

Majority - Fay, Circuit Judge

No. A manager's disagreement with the internal procedures of a workplace investigation does not constitute statutorily protected activity under Title VII. To be protected under Title VII's opposition clause, an employee must oppose an employment practice made unlawful by the statute. Here, Brush’s actions were performed entirely within her capacity as a manager investigating a claim. The court adopted the 'manager rule,' which states that a manager performing her normal job duties does not engage in protected activity unless she 'crosses the line' from being an employee performing her job to an employee lodging a personal complaint. Brush’s disagreement was with Sears' internal investigation procedures, not with an unlawful employment practice, as Sears took remedial action by firing the accused harasser. Furthermore, Brush could not have held a reasonable belief that Sears was acting unlawfully by not calling the police, especially when the victim explicitly requested they not be involved.

Analysis:

This decision formally adopts the 'manager rule' in the Eleventh Circuit, creating a significant hurdle for employees in HR, legal, or other oversight roles who wish to bring Title VII retaliation claims. It narrows the scope of 'protected activity' for such employees, requiring them to demonstrate that their opposition to an employer's actions went beyond the prescribed duties of their job. The ruling distinguishes between opposing an employer's unlawful discriminatory act (which is protected) and merely disagreeing with the employer's internal procedures for handling a complaint (which is not protected). This creates a chilling effect, as managers tasked with ensuring compliance may hesitate to challenge internal processes for fear of unprotected termination.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Janet Brush v. Sears Holdings Corporation (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"