Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

The Supreme Court has agreed to determine whether employees are protected from being fired or demoted if they cooperate with an internal investigation of a supervisor who is accused of discrimination.

In 2002, Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., school officials contacted Vicky Crawford as part of their investigation into charges of sexual misconduct against Gene Hughes, the school district's director of employee relations. Crawford, a payroll supervisor who had worked for local government for 30 years, told them that she had seen Hughes grab his crotch in her presence, that he had asked to see her breasts and that, on one occasion, he grabbed her head and tried to force it into his groin.

At the time, Hughes was responsible for investigating all claims of sexual harassment in the school district.

Crawford's lawsuit alleges that, while the internal probe concluded with no disciplinary action against Hughes, she and two other female employees who agreed to take part in the investigation were fired. Crawford was accused of drug use and other misconduct, but she said the case against her was never pursued.

Crawford filed suit, alleging she had been dismissed in retaliation for what she told investigators about Hughes. That retaliation, she asserted, violated section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that participation in an employer's internal investigation is not protected by section 704(a). To be protected by section 704(a), the court held, a sexual harassment victim must file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Once an employer has initiated an investigation, witnesses -- even witnesses who object to having been sexually harassed -- fall outside the protection of the act.

In November 2006, a three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that complaining about sexual harassment in response to an internal investigation is not protected.

The court of appeals reasoned that applying such protections to sexual harassment victims who speak out during an internal investigation may actually deter employers from even conducting investigations of possible sexual harassment.

The impact of Title VII on an employer can be onerous, the court held. By protecting only participation in investigations that occur relative to EEOC proceedings, the participation clause prevents the burden of Title VII from falling on an employer who proactively chooses to launch an internal investigation. Expanding the purview of the participation clause to cover such investigations would simultaneously discourage them.

In an argument also advanced by the Bush administration, which filed an amicus brief in the case, Crawford's attorneys disputed this assertion, arguing that witnesses and victims will refuse to cooperate with workplace harassment investigations if they risk being fired for what they say.

Workers of ordinary prudence would be likely to avoid cooperating with a sexual harassment internal investigation if they knew they could be fired for doing so, the petition states.

In urging the high court to accept the case for review, the petitioners also point out that the appeals court's position is in conflict with that of other circuits. In the other courts of appeals, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the EEOC's interpretation of section 704(a) is largely unquestioned.

The Supreme Court accepted the case for review on Jan. 18, 2008.

employment law, retaliation

A unanimous Supreme Court held today that employees are protected from being fired or demoted if they cooperate with an internal investigation of a supervisor who is accused of discrimination.

In 2002, Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., school officials contacted Vicky Crawford as part of their investigation into charges of sexual misconduct against Gene Hughes, the school district’s director of employee relations. Crawford, a payroll supervisor who had worked for local government for 30 years, told them that she had seen Hughes grab his crotch in her presence, that he had asked to see her breasts and that, on one occasion, he grabbed her head and tried to force it into his groin.

At the time, Hughes was responsible for investigating all claims of sexual harassment in the school district.

Crawford’s lawsuit alleges that, while the internal probe concluded with no disciplinary action against Hughes, she and two other female employees who agreed to take part in the investigation were fired. Crawford was accused of drug use and other misconduct, but she said the case against her was never pursued.

Crawford filed suit, alleging she had been dismissed in retaliation for what she told investigators about Hughes. That retaliation, she asserted, violated section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that participation in an employer's internal investigation is not protected by section 704(a). To be protected by section 704(a), the court held, a sexual harassment victim must file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Once an employer has initiated an investigation, witnesses -- even witnesses who object to having been sexually harassed -- fall outside the protection of the act.

In November 2006, a three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that complaining about sexual harassment in response to an internal investigation is not protected.

The court of appeals reasoned that applying such protections to sexual harassment victims who speak out during an internal investigation may actually deter employers from even conducting investigations of possible sexual harassment.

The impact of Title VII on an employer can be onerous, the court held. By protecting only participation in investigations that occur relative to EEOC proceedings, the participation clause prevents the burden of Title VII from falling on an employer who proactively chooses to launch an internal investigation. Expanding the purview of the participation clause to cover such investigations would simultaneously discourage them.

In an argument also advanced by the Bush administration, which filed an amicus brief in the case, Crawford’s attorneys disputed this assertion, arguing that witnesses and victims will refuse to cooperate with workplace harassment investigations if they risk being fired for what they say.

Workers of ordinary prudence would be likely to avoid cooperating with a sexual harassment internal investigation if they knew they could be fired for doing so,  the petition states.

In urging the high court to accept the case for review, the petitioners also point out that the appeals court’s position is in conflict with that of other circuits. In the other courts of appeals, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the EEOC’s interpretation of section 704(a) is largely unquestioned.

The Supreme Court accepted the case for review on Jan. 18,2008.

Nearly a year later, a unanimous court reversed and remanded the lower court order.

“Nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court. Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, concurred only in the judgment.

Question presented: Whether and to what extent Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision protects employees from being fired for cooperating with an employer’s internal sexual harassment investigation.