Crawford v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville

555 U.S. 271 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by Gene Hughes. When Veronica Frazier, a Metro human resources officer, asked P, a 30-year Metro employee, whether she had witnessed 'inappropriate behavior' on the part of Hughes, P described several instances of sexually harassing behavior. Two other employees also reported being sexually harassed by Hughes. D took no action against Hughes, but it did fire P and the two other accusers soon after finishing the investigation, saying in P's case that it was for embezzlement. P claimed retaliation and filed a Title VII violation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), followed by this suit. The Title VII anti-retaliation provision has two clauses, making it 'an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . [1] because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or [2] because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.' The first is known as the 'opposition clause,' the other as the 'participation clause,' and P accused D of violating both. The Court granted summary judgment for D holding that P could not satisfy the opposition clause because she had not 'instigated or initiated any complaint,' but had 'merely answered questions by investigators in an already-pending internal investigation, initiated by someone else.' P's claim also failed under the participation clause, which Sixth Circuit precedent confined to protecting ''an employee's participation in an employer's internal investigation . . . where that investigation occurs pursuant to a pending EEOC charge'' (not the case here). The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that the opposition clause ''demands active, consistent 'opposing' activities to warrant . . . protection against retaliation.'' Also, P could show no violation of the participation clause because D's internal investigation was not conducted ''pursuant to a pending EEOC charge.'' P appealed.