Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty.

Background

Vicky Crawford, a 30-year employee, answered questions in an internal investigation into rumors that the school district’s employee relations director, Gene Hughes, had sexually harassed staff. When asked by HR officer Veronica Frazier, Crawford described several instances of touching and other sexually offensive conduct. Metro took no action against Hughes but soon fired Crawford, saying she had embezzled. Crawford filed an EEOC charge and sued under Title VII, alleging retaliation. The District Court granted summary judgment and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, reading the opposition clause to require that an employee have initiated or consistently opposed discrimination and limiting the participation clause to investigations tied to a pending EEOC charge.

Reasoning

The Court held that “oppose” means resist or antagonize, and that reporting discrimination when answering an employer’s internal-investigation questions falls within the opposition clause. The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule that opposition must be active, consistent, or initiated by the employee. It explained nothing in the statute requires protecting only employees who start complaints while denying protection to those who report the same facts when asked. The Court also rejected the argument that broader protection would deter employers from investigating, noting prior decisions (Ellerth and Faragher) encourage employers to prevent and correct discrimination. Because the opposition clause covers Crawford’s conduct, the Court reversed and remanded; other defenses Metro raised remain for the lower courts.

Real world impact

Workers who truthfully report harassment during employer investigations can be protected from retaliation under Title VII. Employers can no longer rely on a rule that denies remedies when employees answer investigation questions. This decision resolves coverage for such reports but is not a final merits decision; additional factual and legal defenses remain on remand.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in the judgment but emphasized a narrower rule: protection extends to testimony in internal investigations or similar purposive conduct and should not be read to cover purely silent or nonpurposive opposition.