Retaliation against an employee that provides information in an in-house investigation by an employer regarding discriminatory practices in the workplace violates the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Crawford v Metro Govt of Nashville, No 06-1595 (January 26, 2009).
The Nashville Metro Government launched an investigation "into rumors of sexual harassment" by a Hughes, the employee relations director for the government's school district. Crawford, a 30 year employee, described to a human resources investigator several instances of sexually harassing behavior by Hughes:
- an instance in which Hughes answered her greeting "by grabbing his crotch and saying 'You know what's up'";
- repeated instances in which Hughes "put his crotch up to her window"; and,
- one occasion where he entered her office and "grabbed her head and pulled it to his crotch"
The metro government took no action against Hughes but fired Crawford, accusing her of embezzlement. She filed suit claiming that her firing was in retaliation for the information she had provided in the human resources investigation regarding Hughes's misconduct. After the district court and Sixth Circuit ruled that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII were inapplicable to Coleman, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case.
The Supreme Court ruled that Crawford was protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII and reinstated her case. The Court strongly rejected the argument that Crawford was not protected because she had not herself complained of harassment and started the investigation, stating
Comments