Free Essay

Case

In: Other Topics

Submitted By rappp
Words 4929
Pages 20
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
Vicky Crawford, was a long-time worker for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. In 2002, the department of human resources began an investigation into Dr. Gene Hughes, the newly hired employee relations director for the Metro School District. Several female employees had expressed concern about being sexually harassed by Hughes. Veronica Frazier, the assistant director for the county human resources department was assigned to investigate the allegations.
Frazier began by calling employees who had worked closely with Hughes, including Crawford. Crawford described to Frazier several incidents of sexual harassment.
According to Crawford, Hughes has requested on "numerous" occasions to see her breasts. Hughes also, in response to the question "What's up?" grabbed his crotch and replied "You know what's up." On several occasions, Crawford continued, Hughes had pressed his crotch against the window of her office. On one occasion, when Crawford asked Hughes what she could do for him, he grabbed her head and pulled it towards his crotch. Other allegations were made by two other women who worked with Hughes.
Frazier's report did not resolve the allegations, as Hughes denied the allegations and there were no witnesses. The report concluded that Hughes had acted inappropriately, but no disciplinary action was taken against him. (In fact even after information surfaced in March 2003 that he had made false statements on his resume, claiming untruthfully that he was an attorney, a professional football player with the Pittsburgh Steelers, and a Navy SEAL, Hughes was merely demoted from his $91,250 position to a $75,857 position, and then moved to the athletics department and given a $6,500 pay raise. Hughes resigned in August 2003 but was allowed to collect pay at home through October 2003.)
However, all three of the witnesses who had offered evidence of sexual harassment, including Crawford, were dismissed. Crawford had been employed by the district for over 30 years. Crawford had expressed reluctance to report the incidences earlier because Hughes headed the department, employee relations, where charges are reported. Hughes was tasked with investigating claims of sexual harassment. Hughes was also, Crawford noted, a good friend of the Director of the School District Pedro Garcia, and Crawford was worried that this would result in her losing her job. The Metro school board in January 2008 voted unanimously to end Garcia's tenure due to poor performance.
Following her termination, Crawford sued her former employer under Title VII, which protects employees who oppose unlawful employment actions from employment retaliation. The District Court concluded, and the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed, that Crawford was not protected by Title VII on two grounds. First, her statements to Frazier did not constitute "opposition" to illegal conduct, as Crawford did not initiate the investigation. Second, the court held that Crawford was not protected against retaliation because the investigation was an employer's internal investigation and a charge had not been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Crawford only filed with the EEOC after she had been terminated, as required by Title VII.
Crawford appealed to the Supreme Court, who heard the case on October 8, 2008. The court ruled unanimously in her favor on January 26, 2009.
-------------------------------------------------
Decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Souter defines two activities Title VII protects, saying section 704(a) "makes it unlawful 'for an employer to discriminate against any... employe[e]' who (1) 'has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter' (opposition clause), or (2) 'has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter' (participation clause)." The Sixth Circuit held, when it heard the case, that the opposition clause demanded "active, consistent" opposing, which it did not find Crawford had done, as she did not initiate her own complaint before to the investigation. It also held that since the internal investigation was not conducted pursuant to a charge pending with the EEOC, Crawford was not protected by the participation clause. The court found that "oppose" is not defined by the statute, so a normal definition of it may be used, per Perrin v. United States. "Thus, a person can 'oppose' by responding to someone else’s questions just as surely as by provoking the discussion," further "we would call it “opposition” if an employee took a stand against an employer’s discriminatory practices not by 'instigating' action, but by standing pat, say, by refusing to follow a supervisor’s order to fire a junior worker for discriminatory reasons." The court supposes there could be a hypothetical case in which an employee describes a "supervisor's racist joke as hilarious," but finds that these "will be eccentric cases, and this is not one of them."
It rejects Metro's argument that "employers will be less likely to raise questions about possible discrimination if a retaliation charge is easy to raise" because "[e]mployers... have a strong inducement to ferret out... discriminatory activity." This is because cases such as Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton hold employers "vicariously liable" for actionable hostile working environments created by supervisors. (Such as Hughes "sexually obnoxious behavior.") Further, studies show that Ellerth and Faragher prompted employers to "adopt or strengthen procedures for investigating, preventing, and correcting discriminatory conduct." From the employees perspective, agreeing with Nashville and the Sixth Circuit would mean the prudent employee may decide not answer questions regarding discrimination, as there would be no protection against retaliation. If employees choose not to participate in internal investigations, the employer would have a defense, should a Title VII lawsuit be filed, as Ellerth requires employees to reasonably "take advantage of... preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer," a situation described by the court as a "catch-22." The court, then, decided not to overturn the Ellerth-Faragher scheme. Having ruled on the "opposition" question, the court chose not to address the "participation" question.
Justice Alito wrote a concurrence joined by Justice Thomas, in which he agrees with the Court's primary reasoning, but separately emphasizes that, he believes, the Court's holding "does not and should not extend beyond employees who testify in internal investigations or engage in analogous purposive conduct." Alito disagrees with the Sixth Circuit that "opposition" must be consistent and initiated by the employee, but writes that the opposition must be "active and purposive." Alito finds the majority's definition of oppose could also "embrace silent opposition," and it is questionable whether that is protected. He worries that an "interpretation of the opposition clause that protects conduct that is not active and purposive" would "open the door to retaliation claims by employees who never expressed a word of opposition to their employers." As a hypothetical, he asks if an employee would be protected in a case where the opposition was expressed in an informal "water cooler" chat. A fired employee could claim that the termination was retaliatory if the employers became aware of the views the employee had expressed. He notes that EEOC retaliation charges doubled between 1992 and 2007 and fears that an "expansive interpretation of protected opposition conduct would likely cause this trend to accelerate."
While that is not the question of this case, Alito finds the answer "far from clear." For "present purposes," however, "it is enough to hold that the opposition clause does protect an employee" like Crawford.
The U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee ("Metro") that the "opposition clause” of Title VII’s antiretaliation provision is broad enough to protect an employee who speaks out about discrimination when answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation, even though the employee did not initiate the complaint.

This case arose following an investigation by Metro into rumors of sexual harassment. During the investigation, long-time Metro employee Vicky Crawford was asked by a human-resources officer whether she had witnessed inappropriate behavior by another Metro employee, Gene Hughes. In response, Crawford described several incidents of sexually harassing behavior by Hughes. Crawford was subsequently fired, as were the two other employees who also had reported sexual harassment by Hughes. Crawford filed suit, claiming that her dismissal violated Title VII because it was in retaliation for her report of Hughes’s behavior. The district court granted summary judgment for Metro, concluding that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision did not cover the conduct at issue because Crawford had not “instigated or initiated any complaint” against Hughes, but had “merely answered questions by investigators," and the Sixth Circuit agreed, concluding that “opposition” under Title VII “demands active, consistent 'opposing' activities to warrant . . . protection against retaliation." To resolve a conflict among the federal courts of appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In a decision authored by Justice Souter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that Crawford’s conduct is covered by the “opposition clause” of Title VII’s antiretaliation provision. That clause makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made . . . unlawful . . . by this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

At the crux of the Court’s opinion was the meaning of the term “oppose,” which is not defined in the statute itself. The Court held that the word “carries its ordinary meaning,” citing definitions such as “to resist or antagonize,” “to confront,” and “to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion.” The Court concluded that providing a disapproving account of an employee’s sexually obnoxious behavior may qualify as resistant or antagonistic, citing an EEOC guideline, and observed that communicating a belief that an employer has engaged in employment discrimination virtually always constitutes opposition to that activity. The Supreme Court thus rejected the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the “opposition clause” as requiring active, consistent, opposing activities, including the initiation or instigation of a complaint. Under the rule announced today, opposition includes not only those who report discrimination on their own initiative, but also those who report discrimination in response to an investigator’s question. The Court expressly did not address the scope and reach of the “participation clause” under Title VII’s antiretaliation provision, which many observers expected the Court to do under the facts of the case.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Alito agreed that Title VII’s “opposition clause” applies to the conduct in question, but emphasized that the Court’s decision does not extend beyond employee testimony in internal investigations or other analogous purposive conduct. In Justice Alito’s view, the Court has not resolved, for example, whether employees who do not communicate their views to employers through purposive conduct are protected by the antiretaliation provision. Thus, the concurrence questioned whether “silent opposition” by an employee would be covered under the "opposition clause."

While the opinion in Crawford may broaden the circumstances in which employees can pursue retaliation claims under Title VII, the long-term impact of the ruling will depend on how far beyond internal investigations, if at all, the decision is applied. As Justice Alito points out in his concurring opinion, yesterday's decision does not explicitly answer that question.
Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 129 S. Ct. 846 (Jan. 26, 2009)
Summary of Crawford: o The issue in the case was whether Title VII protected an employee who spoke out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation. o The lower court held that answering questions in this manner did not constitute adequate “opposition” requisite to trigger the protections of Title VII’s retaliation provisions. o The Supreme Court reversed, and held that the plaintiff’s conduct constituted adequate “opposition” for the purposes of Title VII.
Argument for the “Opposition”: The Supreme Court Clarifies Employees’ “Opposition” as Protected Activity
Published Date:
May 27, 2009
Author:
What constitute an employee’s “opposition” to conduct such that it is protected under the law?
Do an employee’s comments during an employer’s internal investigation constitute an “opposition”?
What about comments to a supervisor, even without an internal investigation?
What about comments overheard by another manager, whether within the workplace, such as at a water cooler, or even outside the workplace, such as in a restaurant? Do these acts constitute an employee’s “opposition”?
And finally, at its broadest, what does it mean to “oppose” anything?
These questions were recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court, in a decision that clarifies employees’ rights and employers’ obligations, and which, by providing a certain definition of the term “oppose,” provides practical guidance to both employees and employers regarding potential claims for unlawful retaliation.
By way of background, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. Like many anti-discrimination laws, Title VII also prohibits retaliation against employees. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a). Specifically, Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee either “[1] because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter” (“opposition clause”), or “[2] because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter” (“participation clause”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). This anti-retaliation provision, and the “opposition clause” in particular, were recently put into question by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 846, 172 L.Ed.2d 650 (U.S. Jan 26, 2009). Background
In 2002, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (“Metro”), began an internal investigation into rumors of sexual harassment by one of its employees, Gene Hughes. During Metro’s investigation, a human resources officer asked Vicky Crawford, a 30-year employee who had not initiated the investigation, whether she had seen Hughes engage in any “inappropriate behavior.” In response, Crawford described several instances of sexually harassing behavior which she said Hughes had committed against her. After its investigation, Metro took no action against Hughes. However, several months later, it did fire Crawford and two other accusers, claiming in Crawford’s case that she was terminated for “embezzlement.” Crawford, 129 S.Ct. at 849. Crawford subsequently claimed that Metro had retaliated against her as a result of her report of Hughes’s behavior, and she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was followed by a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Id. at 849-850.
District Court & Court of Appeals opinions
In reviewing Crawford’s claim, the district court granted summary judgment for Metro, holding that Crawford could not satisfy Title VII’s “opposition clause” because she never “instigated or initiated” any complaint, but merely “answered questions by investigators in an already-pending internal investigation, initiated by someone else.” Id. at 850 (citation omitted, emphasis added) Thus, Crawford had not “opposed” any unlawful practice.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Crawford’s claim. In a decision that had been cited several times by federal district courts in Ohio, the Sixth Circuit held that Title VII’s opposition clause “demands active, consistent ‘opposing’ activities to warrant . . . protection against retaliation,” whereas Crawford did not claim “to have instigated or initiated any complaint prior to her participation in the investigation, nor did she take any further action following the investigation and prior to her firing.” Id. (quoting 211 Fed. Appx. 373, 376 (6th Cir. 2006)). Supreme Court opinion The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s decision, holding that Crawford’s response during Metro’s investigation was in fact covered by the “opposition clause,” as it was “an ostensibly disapproving account of sexually obnoxious behavior toward her by a fellow employee, an answer she says antagonized her employer to the point of sacking her on a false pretense.” Id. at 850-51. In addition to its legal implications, what makes the Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford interesting is that its analysis turned not as much on legal precedent as it did on the definition and interpretation of the word “oppose”: when may it reasonably be said that someone “opposes” something?
According to the Court, Title VII’s opposition clause makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to discriminate against any . . . employe[e] . . . because he has opposed any practice made . . . unlawful . . . by this subchapter.” The Court continued that because the term “oppose” was not defined in the statute, the term carried its “ordinary” meaning, which the Court found in several dictionaries as: “to resist or antagonize . . . ; to contend against; to confront; resist; withstand.” Id. at 850.
In light of this “ordinary” definition of the term “oppose,” the Court concluded that Crawford’s statement would certainly qualify in the minds of reasonable jurors as ‘resist[ant]’ or ‘antagoni[stic]’ to Hughes’s treatment, if for no other reason than the point . . . explained by an EEOC guideline: ‘When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . . a form of employment discrimination, that communication’ virtually always ‘constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.’
Id. at 851. The Court expressly rejected the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Bell v. Safety Grooving & Grinding, in which the Sixth Circuit ruled that just “answering questions” falls short of “opposition,” that the opposition clause “demands active, consistent ‘opposing’ activities to warrant . . . protection against retaliation,” and that an employee must “instigat[e] or initiat[e]” a complaint to be covered.” Id. (quoting Bell, supra, at 610) According to the Supreme Court, “though these requirements obviously exemplify opposition as commonly understood, they are not limits of it.” Id. Indeed, the Supreme Court described the Sixth Circuit’s definition as “freakish”:
‘Oppose’ goes beyond ‘active, consistent’ behavior in ordinary discourse . . . Countless people were known to ‘oppose’ slavery before Emancipation, or are said to ‘oppose’ capital punishment today, without writing public letters, taking to the streets, or resisting the government. And we would call it ‘opposition’ if an employee took a stand against an employer's discriminatory practices not by ‘instigating’ action, but by standing pat, say, by refusing to follow a supervisor’s order to fire a junior worker for discriminatory reasons. There is, then, no reason to doubt that a person can ‘oppose’ by responding to someone else’s question just as surely as by provoking the discussion, and 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.
Id. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that its holding would make employers less likely to conduct investigations, since employers still have “a strong inducement to ferret out and put a stop to any discriminatory activity in their operations as a way to break the circuit of imputed liability” under the Farragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. Id. at 852. Concurring opinion
In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito, with Justice Thomas joining, said that while the term “oppose” does not mean that a complaint must be “instigated or initiated” by the employee, “the primary definitions of the term ‘oppose’ do, however, require conduct that is active and purposive.” Id. at 854. Justice Alito expressed concern that the Court’s definition of “opposition” may include “opinions,” a definition which “embraces silent opposition.” According to Justice Alito, all of the other protected conduct, such as making a charge, testifying, or assisting or participating in an investigation, “requires active and purposive conduct.” Id. Justice Alito said that it was therefore questionable whether “silent” opposition was covered by the “opposition clause,” and that the Court’s definition “would open the door to retaliation claims by employees who never expressed a word of opposition to their employers”:
Suppose, for example, that an employee alleges that he or she expressed opposition while informally chatting with a co-worker at the proverbial water cooler or in a workplace telephone conversation that was overheard by a co-worker. Or suppose that an employee alleges that such a conversation occurred after work at a restaurant or tavern frequented by co-workers or at a neighborhood picnic attended by a friend or relative of a supervisor.
Id. Because retaliation claims are sometimes permitted on the basis of the amount of time lapsed between the purported “opposition” and the adverse employment action alone, Justice Alito said that an employee claiming retaliation may be able to establish causation “simply by showing that, within some time period prior to the adverse action, the employer, by some indirect means, became aware of the views that the employee had expressed.” Nevertheless, because Justice Alito agreed with the decision as it applied to Vicky Crawford, he concurred in the judgment.
Practical Analysis & Advice
Because of the broad interpretation of the term “opposition” that the Supreme Court has now applied in Crawford, and because of the potential applicability of the Court’s definition to other anti-retaliation statutes, it is likely that the Crawford decision will result in an increased number of retaliation claims by employees. In order to reduce the risk of violating the law when conducting internal investigations into allegations of discrimination, employers should remind employees of the company’s own anti-retaliation policy, and that the employees will not be retaliated against in any way for participating in the investigation. Employers should also take the opportunity to remind employees of all available avenues for reporting potential retaliation, whether to the employee’s supervisor, a human resource department, or other management. Finally, employers should be particularly cautious (or meticulous, if need be) about taking any adverse actions against participants in internal investigations. This will hopefully minimize the potential for violations of the law, and by extension the potential for claims by employees.
Cross-8e: Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 22: Employment Discrimination

22–6. CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Sexual Harassment.

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (Metro), began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by the Metro School District’s employee relations director, Gene Hughes. Veronica Frazier, a Metro human resources officer, asked Vicky Crawford, a Metro employee, whether she had witnessed “inappropriate behavior” by Hughes. Crawford described several instances of sexually harassing behavior. Two other employees also reported being sexually harassed by Hughes. Metro took no action against Hughes, but soon after completing the investigation, Metro accused Crawford of embezzlement and fired her. The two other employees were also fired. Crawford filed a suit in a federal district court against Metro, claiming retaliation under Title VII. What arguments can be made that Crawford’s situation does or does not qualify as a retaliation claim under Title VII? Discuss. [Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 846, 172 L.Ed.2d 650 (2009)]
Sample Answer:
In a retaliation claim, an individual asserts that she suffered a harm as a result of making a charge, testifying, or participating in a Title VII investigation or proceeding. To prove retaliation, a party must show that the challenged action was likely to have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. One argument that Crawford’s situation does not qualify as a retaliation claim under Title VII is that she did not initiate a complaint, but merely answered questions in an investigation initiated by someone else. Also, the investigation was not related to a pending Title VII case. But the statement that Crawford made to the Metro human resources officer described a co-worker’s “inappropriate” sexually harassing behavior. It is reasonable to assume that the statement was opposed to the behavior. Crawford contends that her description antagonized her employer to the point of sacking her on a false pretense. If an employee who reported harassing behavior or other discrimination in answering an employer’s questions could be penalized without a remedy, prudent employees would have a good reason to keep quiet about offenses against themselves or others. This is not the goal of Title VII or other employment discrimination laws, which are predicated on eliminating such conduct in workplaces. In the case on which this problem is based, the trial and lower federal appellate courts issued rulings in the employer’s favor, but based partially on the reasons stated above, the United State Supreme Court reversed these rulings and remanded the case.
US Supreme Court; Crawford v Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 1‐26‐09
1/26/09: In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, 129 S. Ct. 846 (2009), the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an employee engaged in protected activity under Title VII's retaliation provision by answering an employer's questions in connection with a sexual harassment investigation started by company rumors about a male supervisor. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Alito wrote an opinion, concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas
Ms. Crawford Responds to an Investigation into Sexual Harassment
Here is what happened: Rumors started circulating about sexually inappropriate behavior by a male supervisor, Gene Hughes, at "Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County" ("Metro"). A humresources employee started investigating, and asked Vicky Crawford whether she had seen any inappropriate behavior by Mr. Hughes. Crawford responded yes, and described several instances of sexually inappropriate behavior. For example, Ms. Crawford had asked Mr. Hughes "what'and he responded by grabbing his crotch and saying "you know what's up". On another occasion, Mr. Hughes grabbed Ms. Crawford'shead and pulled it toward his crotch. The human resources employee talked to two oemployees who similarly reported sexually harassing behavior from Mr. Hughes.
Although all 3 of those employees reported, in response to questions by Metro's human resources investigator, sexually offensive behavior by Mr. Hughes, none of them initiated any sexual harassment complaint themselves.
As a result of its investigation, Metro took no action against Mr. Hughes, the harasser. On the other hand, Metro fired Ms. Crawford and the other two employees who answered the HR employee's questions‐‐all 3 were fired shortly after the investigation into Mr. Hughes was concluded. Ms. Crawford had been employed at Metro for 30 years
Case Dismissed: Ms. Crawford Didn't "Oppose" Sexual Harassment
Ms. Crawford then filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and then filed suit in federal court in Tennessee, claiming she had been fired in retaliation for her reporting of Mr. Hughes' sexual harassment.
The Trial Court dismissed her lawsuit, and the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Ms. Crawford did not initiate her own sexual harassment complaint, but instead simply responded to questions initiated by Metro in Metro's investigation into the rumors about Mr. Hughes.
Supreme Court Reinstates Ms. Crawford's Case, Defining "Opposition"
The US Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Crawford satisfied the retaliation provision of Title VII and reinstated her case. This is why.
Title VII's retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‐3(a), makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against" an employee because: the employee has "opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice " by Title VII (this is called the "opposition clause"), or • the employee has "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated" in any "investigation, proceeding, or hearing" under Title VII (this is called the "participation clause").
In addressing the "opposition clause": The Sixth Circuit concluded Ms. Crawford didn't "oppose" any discriminatory practice because she didn't file any complaint herself, and because "opposition" requires "active, consistent" opposition activities. Merely responding to the HR employee's questions, according to the Sixth Circuit, was not "opposition", so the employer was free to take adverse or retaliatory action against Ms. Crawford. The US Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, as I will discuss below.
The Sixth Circuit also addressed the "participation clause" and concluded Ms. Crawford had no protection against retaliation because she had not "participated" in any complaint proceeding under Title VII. The US Supreme Court did not address this ruling.
The US Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's reasoning on the "opposition clause" and reinstated Ms. Crawford's case. The US Supreme Court said the word "oppose" in Title VII should be given its "ordinary meaning", in part based on a dictionary definition, to "resist or antagonize", or to "contend against; to confront; resist; withstand". 1 The US Supreme Court easily found that Ms. Crawford's responses to the HR employee’s questions constituted "opposition" to Mr. Hughes' sexually inappropriate behavior. There was "no reason to doubt" that a person can "oppose" by "responding to someone else's question just as surely" as by "provoking the discussion", and nothing in Title VII requires a "freakish rule" ("ouch!!" says the Sixth Circuit) 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".
Because the US Supreme Court found Ms. Crawford's case should be reinstated because she satisfied the "opposition clause," the US Supreme Court did not address the question of whether her statements satisfied the "participation clause". 2 Justices Alito and Thomas, in their opinion concurring in the result, agreed with the "primary" rationale in Justice Souter's majority opinion, but were concerned that some of the language in the majority opinion (referencing part of a dictionary definition) could protect an employee who "silently" opposed discriminatory behavior. They thought there would have to be some public manifestation of the opposition, and they thought Ms. Crawford did so.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Case

...CPET 575 Management of Technology Technological Innovation Case I-1 Elio Engineering, Inc Lecture Note & Summary by Professor Paul I-Hai Lin Pages 13-31 of Text Book: Robert A. Burgelman, Clayton M. Christensen, and Steven C. Wheelwright, Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 5th edition, McGrawHill, 2009. Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc. 1 Outline       Origin of Elio Engineering Seat Mechanism Technologies Industry and Regulatory Environment Technological Barriers and Risks Capabilities Requirements for Players in Automotive Seats and Comparative Company Profiles Decision Time Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc. 2 1 Origin of Elio Engineering Paul Elio  Hari Saknkara   Technical Capabilities • JCI Benchmarking Department • JCI Structural Design and Analysis Department 1996 -1998 • A patent: revolutionary bike design • Failed venture   Technical Capabilities: 1988 – 1997, JCI’s Structural Design & Analysis Department MBA training 1998 Summer Intern at Booz Allen Hamilton, a management consulting firm  Feb. 1998 • A new seat design “No Compromise”  Feb. 1999 Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc. 3 Origin of Elio Engineering 1998  First venture meeting: Paul & Hari, at Venice, CA  Agenda • ABTS (All-Belts-To-Seat) • Announcement & comments  A cost effective new seat design - a special class of ABTS Utilizing new technology Resulting structure: Low cost, Light weight, Strong • Features ...

Words: 3130 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Case

...THE ON OT C OP YO CASE STUDY HANDBOOK RP OS T ON OP YO RP OT C OS T THE ON OT C Write Persuasively About Cases OP CASE STUDY HANDBOOK How to Read, Discuss, and William Ellet Harvard Business School Press Boston, Massachusetts YO RP OS T Copyright 2007 William Ellet All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 11 10 09 08 07 5 4 3 2 1 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher. Requests for permission should be directed to permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu, or mailed to Permissions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02163. The copyright on each case in this book unless otherwise noted is held by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and they are published herein by express permission. Permission requests to use individual Harvard copyrighted cases should be directed to permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu, or mailed to the Permissions Editor, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Boston, MA 02163. ON OT C Case material of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration is made possible by the cooperation of business firms and other organizations which may wish to remain anonymous by having names, quantities, and......

Words: 96750 - Pages: 387

Premium Essay

Case

...Assignment 1, 2013 – Case Studies Tutorial-based group assessments Due: See ‘Due Dates for Case Study Submission’ section Marks: 30% of the total marks for the unit Background – Learning with Cases Harvard University, probably the most famous source of teaching cases, describes these resources as follows: “Teaching cases – also known as case studies – are narratives designed to serve as the basis for classroom discussion. Cases don’t offer their own analysis. Instead, they are meant to test the ability of students to apply the theory they’ve learned to a ‘real world’ situation … where good accounts of specific events can help exemplify and illuminate theory” (Harvard, 2000). The use of cases based on or around real organisations and/or current issues provides an entirely different approach to learning from that of lectures or more conventional tutorial exercises, where students solve specific problems in isolation from the world of business. Case preparation is a significant part of both undergraduate and postgraduate business study – particularly in the English-speaking world – and it is important to learn to do it effectively and efficiently. I have provided two introductory readings to help you with this process: “Learning Information Systems with Cases” (a pdf file available from your KXO223 MyLO resources) and “Notes on Writing a Case Study Report” (included in this document as Appendix A). Please begin by reading these carefully. Cases are usually based......

Words: 15979 - Pages: 64

Free Essay

Case

...case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case case......

Words: 3640 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

Case

...Join now! Login Support Other Term Papers and Free Essays Browse Papers Business / Timbuk2 Case Study Timbuk2 Case Study Term Papers Timbuk2 Case Study and over other 20 000+ free term papers, essays and research papers examples are available on the website! Autor: santhanam.vikram 09 December 2013 Tags: Words: 723 | Pages: 3 Views: 86 Read Full Essay Join Now! CASE STUDY: TIMBUK2 1.) Consider the two categories of products that Timbuk2 makes and sells. For the custom messenger bag, what are the key competitive dimensions that are driving sales? Are their competitive priorities different for the new laptop bags sourced in China? Some of the competitive advantage which are the key factors of Timbuk2 bags are:-  Quality  Durable  Reliable  Not prone to defects  Custom made bags for each of the customers  The quick delivery of bags  The rave review which the company gets for its bags i.e. it basically carries a good name in the market  For its laptop bags, even though they are manufactured in china, the designing is done in San Francisco. so the exclusivity remains  Cost effective manufacture of laptop bags in china  Being able to adopt to changes in demand and fashion By manufacturing the bags in china the company saved the manufacturing cost but lost their niche of manufacturing and selling in America itself. The general perception of it being a Chinese product led to customers felling......

Words: 564 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Case

.../InstructorResourceManual.pdf‎ The case was prepared by Mark S. Beasley, Ph.D. and Frank A. Buckless, Ph.D. of North Carolina State University and .... Case 1.1: Ocean Manufacturing, Inc. Ocean Manufacutring Inc The New Client Acceptance ... www.studymode.com/.../ocean-manufacutring-inc-the-new-client-accept...‎ Ocean Manufacturing, Inc.: the New Client Acceptance Decision: Case 1.1 Ocean ... Problem Solution: Harrison-Keyes Inc. Ayodeji Ajayi University of Phoenix ... Ocean Manufacturing, Inc.: The New Client Acceptance ... www.freecasestudysolutions.com/case-study-Ocean-Manufacturing-Inc-...‎ Case 1.1 Ocean Manufacturing, Inc.: The New Client Acceptance Decision Ocean Manufacturing, Inc. is recommended as a ... ORDER NEW SOLUTIONS ... Solution Manual for Auditing Cases An Interactive Learning ... testbanksfor.com › All test banks and solution manuals‎ Download Solution Manual for Auditing Cases An Interactive Learning Approach 5th Edition by Beasely. Solution Of Ocean Manufacturing Inc Free Essays 1 - 30 www.papercamp.com/group/solution-of-ocean-manufacturing.../page-0‎ Free Essays on Solution Of Ocean Manufacturing Inc for students. ... ACCT 805AE Case 4 Ocean Manufacturing, Inc The Osprey Group Feb 21, ... Auditing: r c aSe S t h at diSc uSS topicS rel ated to thiS Section 1.1 Ocean Manufacturing, Inc. . Case 1 1 Ocean Manufacturing Inc Free Essays 1 - 30 www.papercamp.com/group/case-1-1-ocean-manufacturing-inc/page-0‎ Case 1.1 Ocean Manufacturing, Inc.:......

Words: 447 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case to Case

...CASE STUDY 2 I. THE ARALIN TEACHER Mrs. Boots De Vola was assigned to teach the first section in third year level. She assumed that she is an effective and efficient teacher in Araling Panlipunan because of that. There are many teachers qualified and much deserving to teach the star section. Now, the students are complaining of the expenses regarding projects, special projects and the way she behave in classroom. II. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS Mrs. Boots De Vola have underwent the process of being LSB teacher, PSB teacher, before she was declared as regular teacher in Banana National High School. It has been five years that she handled Aralin in section one. There are congruency on each year complaint but since the students are afraid of failing her subject they remained quiet. I seldom hear news about her projects and the money she collected from her advisory class. Every single mistake has an specified amount to be collected as fine, but the students don’t know where these money will be spent. Another concern about Mrs. Boots De Vola is the way she handled and treated her students. She always nag and shout to students, for her it’s the way of disciplining her students. Some of the students chose to dropped schooling because they felt being degraded and they do not have money for everyday fine. Lately, a mother asked her about the special project of her son amounting one hundred thirty pesos. The project was properly discussed, but we found out that......

Words: 699 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Case

...ACE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT Affiliated to POKHARA UNIVERSITY CASE STUDY ON "Managing Motivation in a Difficult Economy" Prepared by Submitted to Raju Karki Shanker Raj Pandey Rama Satyal Ramesh KC Sandeep Amir Kansakar Sanjeev Shrestha THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Motivation is the process that accounts for an individual intensity, direction and persistence of efforts towards attaining a goal. It is the result of interaction between an individual and the situation. Motivated person says "Nothing is impossible” and put his best effort on the task assigned. The different organizational topics covered on the case are as follows:- a. Organizational Justice:- Organizational Justice is the overall perception of what is fair in the workplace. Disruptive Justice is the employee's perception of fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals. e.g. How much we get paid relative to what we think we should be paid? Similarly, Procedural Justice is the perceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of reward. For employees to see a process as a fair, they need to feel they have some control over the outcome and that they were given an adequate explanation about why the outcome occurred. Finally, Interactional Justice is an individual's perception of the degree to which she is treated with dignity, concern and respect. b. Diversity and Age:- Workforce diversity can be studied under two headings:- i.......

Words: 1602 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Case

...Case study notes This case has been updated to include the Apple iPad. Principally this is case explores the issue of licensing and how successful firms can become unsuccessful. It is not a case about Apple and why it has become successful. This case study explores the rise of the Apple Corporation. The Apple iPod is one of the most successful new product launches in recent years, transforming the way the public listens to music, with huge ramifications for major record labels. More than 50 million MP3 players are expected to be sold in 2005; over a third more than last year. Mobile phones have long been regarded as the most credible challengers to MP3 players and iPods. The launch of digital download services via mobile phones illustrates the dramatic speed of convergence between the telecom and media industries, which many observers expect to usher in a new era of growth for mobile phones. Users are willing to pay more for additional services and many analysts predict that mobile phone handsets will eventually emerge as the dominant technology of the age, combining personal organisers, digital music players and games consoles in a single device. Indeed, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has predicted that mobile phones will supersede the iPod as the favoured way of listening to digital music. The launch of the Apple ipad in 2010 makes this case even more topical. This should form the basis of supplementary questions at the end of the case: How will the iPhone succeed? What......

Words: 16512 - Pages: 67

Premium Essay

Cases

...Income-tax has stated a case for our opinion on the four questions of law submitted in para 15. Question (4) deals with the genuineness of the alleged loans, but in para 33 the Commissioner explains the basis on which he has submitted this question, although in one sense it may be said to be a question of fact. Turning to the facts it appears that in the year 1921 the assessee formed four private companies which I will call family companies for convenience of reference, although in fact no other member of his family took any direct benefit thereunder. The names of these four companies were Petit Limited: The Bombay Investment Company Limited: The Miscellaneous Investment Company: and the Safe Securities Limited: Each of these companies took over a particular block of investments belonging to the assessee. But as the modus operandi was substantially the same in each case it will suffice to follow out the fortunes of Petit Limited. Taking then Petit Limited as an example, this family company was incorporated about April 12, 1921, with a nominal capital of rupees ten millions divided ultimately into 9,99,900 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each and one hundred preference shares of Rs. 10 each carrying a fixed cumulative preferential dividend of six per cent. Its issued and subscribed capital consists of 3,48,604 fully paid ordinary shares all held by the assessee, and three fully paid preference shares held by three persons who are alleged in para 24 of the case to be his......

Words: 8140 - Pages: 33

Premium Essay

Case

...Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: “Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he “has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” In the case at bar, Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust" operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. Again, the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the accused-appellant. 2. The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of......

Words: 9859 - Pages: 40

Free Essay

Case

...add-on. Initial paper work took some time, so the new patients were asked to come earlier so that the work could be completed on time. Also informing the new patients to adhere to appointment timings was a usual practice to avoid delays. What procedures were followed to keep the appointment system flexible enough to accommodate the emergency cases, and yet be able to keep up with the other patients’ appointments? It is often observed that doctors misuse the time and often emergency cases are taken as excuses for not adhering to the schedule. It was important to make the system flexible to adjust the emergency cases as well as to adhere to the timelines and get back to schedule. In case of real emergencies like fractures or caesarean section etc., all other appointments could be dropped; however in case of small issues, the doctor was expected to come back on track as early as possible and give the patient a choice to wait or reschedule the appointment. Also the assistant of the doctors were ordered to keep some open slots throughout the day for the patients suffering acutely. This time was also used to look into the emergency cases....

Words: 318 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Case

...Siyu Zhang Case 2 Feb.22 Paperback writer The professor’s book title, Criminal Intent, does not have any kind of legal protection. In order for literary or artistic expression to be protected from copying it must meet three requirements by law. The requirements for obtaining legal protection on this kind of material include the following: it must be original, it must be fixed in a durable medium, and it must show some level of creativity. In this case, Criminal Intent was obviously published in a durable medium; however its level of originality and creativity are minor at best. On the other hand, the titles of the Rolling Stones songs are entitled to legal protection. First of all, titles such as Honky Tonk Woman and 19th Nervous Breakdown would probably be considered more creative and original than in the case with Criminal Intent. Therefore, the Rolling Stones song titles meet all three requirements for protection of artistic expression. Also, this protection would be largely due to the popularity the songs achieved when they were released. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 aims to protect trademarks from unauthorized uses even when it is unlikely to confuse consumers. Under Trademark law, an expression may be given protection if it acquires a secondary meaning, meaning that the term or expression has become closely associated with a particular company (in this case, these specific song titles being associated with Rolling Stones). For these......

Words: 660 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Case

...Assignment Questions for Harvard Cases 3. Hilton Manufacturing Company In Exhibit 3 of the case, change the description for estimating variable portion of "Compensation" and use 5% of direct labor cost rather than 5% of direct labor and indirect labor cost as indicated in that Exhibit 3. Again, DO NOT USE 5% of DL and IDL costs. A product cost is itself a product of a cost accounting system. To use product cost information in decision making, a manager must understand the nature of the cost measurement system that has been used to estimate a product cost and be able to evaluate whether or not the product cost at hand is appropriate for the decision which is about to be made. A second objective is to provide practice in considering whether or not assumptions about cost behavior are critical to decisions and to expand the notion of contribution beyond the simple idea of price minus variable cost per unit. A third objective introduces the concept of breakeven analysis, not by focusing on the point where no profit is earned but rather as a tool to consider whether or not one of two price points might be preferred. Finally, the last assignment question invites you to consider factors that lead to profitability. You begin your analysis by focusing on two issues raised in the assigned questions. The first is whether the decision not to drop Product 103 as of January 1, 2004 was wise. In addition, you are asked to analyze what would have been the impact on......

Words: 1312 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Case

...A few tips from Bain & Company: • • • • • Don't get thrown by the interviewer's questions. The interviewer is your ally and uses questions to get a better understanding of your thought process--not to stump you. Be concise. If asked for the top two issues, confine your response to two items. Provide logical back-up for your answers. Be sure to explain what case facts led you to a conclusion, and how you reasoned from those facts to your conclusion. Don't be afraid to ask clarifying questions. If you don't understand the case facts, it will be tough to ace the interview. Relax and have fun. You should learn a lot about yourself through the case interview process. A few tips from Mercer Management: • • • • There is no "right" answer. We are not looking for a specific answer. We are trying to gain some insight on your thought process. Ask questions. We do not expect you to know anything about the industry presented in your case. We do expect you to ask good questions. Think out loud. The point of the case interview is to understand how you think. Structure your answer. We're looking for an organized pattern of thought to attack the problem, not a disparate set of ideas. Help us see how you order your thoughts and ideas, moving from one to the next in order to address the question. While use of a framework may be helpful in this area, be careful if you use one. We want to understand your thought process, not see that you've memorized someone else's framework. (And never use a......

Words: 382 - Pages: 2