New Rules on Internal Investigations

U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Title VII Retaliation And Participation In Internal Investigations

In Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, 129 S. Ct. 846 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protect an employee from being dismissed because she participated in her employer’s internal investigation of sexual harassment where the employee did not have a pending EEOC charge.

Plaintiff Vicky Crawford, who worked as a Metro employee for thirty years, was fired after being accused of embezzlement and drug use. Prior to her termination, Crawford participated in an internal investigation of sexual harassment complaints against Metro’s employee relations director. Crawford filed suit against Metro alleging that her actions during the internal investigation constituted opposition to a practice made unlawful by Title VII and that she therefore engaged in protected activity under the retaliation provisions of Title VII.

The Court unanimously decided that the opposition clause of Title VII applied where the employee gave a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior even if the employee did not take further action on her own to stop or remedy the conduct. The Court stated that there is no reason to doubt that a person can “oppose” unlawful conduct by responding to someone else’s question or complaint. According to the Court, nothing in the statute requires the “freakish” rule which protects 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.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Crawford’s case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. After a five-day trial, a jury awarded Crawford $1.5 million in compensatory damages, back pay and future lost earnings.