U.S. Supreme Court Protects Sexual Harassment Witness From Retaliation
Vicky Crawford, who testified in her employer’s internal investigation of a sexual harassment charge is protected against retaliation under a federal civil rights law, the Supreme Court ruled in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee a 9-0 decision. Crawford had been a payroll coordinator for more than 30 years for the public school system in Nashville and Davidson County in Tennessee. In 2002, several female employees complained of sexual harassment by Hughes,the school district's employee relations director. The assistant director of human resources began an investigation and interviewed several employees who worked with Hughes, including Crawford. Crawford told the assistant human resources director that Hughes asked to see her breasts on numerous occasions, grabbed his genitals in front of her and once pulled her head toward his crotch.
The investigation did not result in any disciplinary action against Hughes. A few months after taking part in the investigation, Crawford was suspended and then fired. Two other women who complained about sexual harassment by Hughes also were fired. This constituted retaliation according to the lawsuit.
Supreme Court Justice David Souter, writing for his colleagues, argued that the lower courts erred in ruling that Crawford was not protected because she did not “oppose” Hughes’ harassment, as her colleague who formally filed the charge did. Rather, the courts said Crawford was just answering questions
Souter said Crawford was covered by the law because she had actively opposed the sexually obnoxious behavior by Hughes toward her, a decision that allows her lawsuit to go forward even though she didn't make the initial sexual harassment complaint.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp.V), forbids retaliation by employers against employees who report workplace race or gender discrimination. The question before the United States Supreme Court in this case is whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during anemployer’s internal investigation. The Court held that it does.
The Title VII antiretaliation 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 hehas made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated inany manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a). The one is known as the “opposition clause,” the other as the “participation clause,” and Crawford accused Metro of violating both.
