Supreme Court Issues Retaliation Opinion
After a relatively quiet 2008 session on employment related issues, the United States Supreme Court issued it's second employment related decision in the past 2 weeks. Today, in Crawford v. Metropolitan Govt of Nashville, the Supreme Court decided that an employee, who responded to questions during an internal investigation is protected under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII. Crawford, a 30 year employee, was questioned by a Metro Government HR manager during an internal investigation concerning rumors of sexual harassment by Mr. Hughes, the school district's employee relations director. She responded that Hughes had sexually harassed her. Crawford was terminated shortly thereafter for embezzlement. She filed her suit under Title VII, alleging that she was retaliated against for reporting Hughes' behavior during the investigation. Hughes was not disciplined at all. The court found that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII extends protection to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in response to questions asked during an internal investigation. The Court found her response was covered under the "opposition" clause as a disapproving account of Hughes' sexually obnoxious behavior toward her.
Practice Pointer. During the course of an investigation, it is imperative that the employer learn of what happened as quickly as possible. Witnesses, in answering questions during an investigation, are protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII. Before any adverse action is taken against a witness in an investigation, it is important to confer with HR and/or legal counsel to make sure that the action is not retaliatory.
Make sure you’ve read our disclaimer prior to commenting.