• Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • Whistleblower Resources
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
The Truth at Any Cost.
Qui Tam, Compliance and Anti-Corruption News.
SIGN THE PETITION FOR NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER DAY IN 2023
Whistleblower Network News
  • Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • Whistleblower Resources
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
No Result
View All Result
Home Legislation

Supreme Court protects answering boss’ questions, and reverses a “freakish rule”

WNN StaffbyWNN Staff
January 26, 2009
in Legislation, News
Reading Time: 4 mins read
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail

Today the U.S. Supreme Court makes clear that workers are protected from retaliation when they provide information about unlawful discrimination, even when they did not initiate any legal action, but merely answered questions during the employer’s investigation. The decision is called, Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Case No. 06-1595.

Read the Court’s full decision here.

Follow this link to NWC’s press release about the Crawford case, including links to the parties’ briefs.

Support Whistleblower Network News

This link goes to the NELA amicus brief in support of Crawford.

 

In 2002, Nashville’s Metropolitan Government began investigating rumors of sexual harassment by MetroSchool District’s employee relations director, Gene Hughes. A human resources investigator asked Vicky Crawford whether she had witnessed “inappropriate behavior” by Hughes. Crawford had worked for the schools for over thirty (30) years. Crawford answered that she herself had experienced inappropriate conduct by Hughes. She detailed how Hughes had grabbed his crotch to punctuate his claim, “You know what’s up.” Crawford reported that Hughes often put his crotch up to her window. Crawford also revealed that Hughes once grabbed her head and pulled it toward his crotch. Other employees reported sexual harassment by Hughes. The Metro Government took no action against Hughes, but fired Crawford claiming embezzlement. Crawford claimed that was retaliation for blowing the whistle on Hughes’ sexual harassment.

The lower courts dismissed Crawford’s claims. Those courts reasoned that since Crawford had not initiated any official complaint, she had not “participated” in a proceeding, and had not “opposed” any unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court noted that lower courts had disagreed on what “opposition” is protected, and it took Crawford’s case to resolve the conflict.

Crawford’s case arises from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion. Like many employee rights laws, it prohibits retaliation for those employees who “participate” in proceedings, or “oppose” unlawful practices. These two clauses have different rules of protection for whistleblowers. Under the “participation” clause, employees are protected when they file official complaints, or serve as witnesses, regardless of the merits of the case. Under the “opposition” clause, employees must show that they had a reasonable basis to believe that there was an actual violation of the law, and that the employer’s retaliation was on account of some “opposition” to that violation.

The Court said that, “we would naturally use the word [oppose] to speak of someone who has taken no action at all to advance a position beyond disclosing it.” The Supreme Court made clear that employees would be protected for, say, “refusing to follow a supervisor’s order to fire ajunior worker for discriminatory reasons.” The Court explains, “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.”

The Court recalls that the “primary objective” of Title VII is to “avoid harm” to employees. “If it were clear law that an employee who reported discrimination in answering an employer’s questions could be penalized with no remedy, prudent employees would have a good reason to keep quiet about Title VII offenses against themselves or against others.” The Court noted that this is no imaginary horrible given the documented indications that “fear of retaliation is the leading reason why people stay silent instead of voicing their concerns about bias and discrimination.”

In its footnote 2, the Court rejected Metro’s claim that Crawford should lose protection because she once told Hughes “bite me” and on other occasion gave him the finger. The Court said that, “Crawford gave no indication that Hughes’s gross clowning was anything but offensive to her.”

Given that the Supreme Court decided the lower courts were wrong about the scope of the opposition clause, the Court did not reach the issue of whether Crawford was protected by the participation clause. It is allowing the lower courts to reconsider that issue.

Two justices filed a separate “concurring” opinion to say that the Court’s holding should be limited to testifying about unlawful conduct in an internal investigation. They argue that otherwise an employee could make out a case merely by having an opinion that is against unlawful discrimination, even if that opinion is never expressed to the employer. This could lead to difficult issues of proof about when an employer learned about such an opinion. These justices also noted that the number of retaliation complaints filed with EEOC has increased. That these two justices could not get the majority to adopt their views could support arguments in favor of the claims these two justices were concerned about.

While this outcome was expected from the Court’s acceptance of this case, and from the justices’ comments during oral argument, it is still an important advance for whistleblowers. The Supreme Court makes clear that it is our national policy to protect those who speak out about violations, and we are not going to accept employers’ attempts to limit the rights that are there to further the public interest.

 

Tags: Supreme CourtTitle VIIWhistleblower News
Previous Post

Audit Firm Finds White-Collar Fraud and Whistleblower Complaints Are on the Rise

Next Post

House Victory for Whistleblowers, On to the Senate!

WNN Staff

WNN Staff

Next Post

House Victory for Whistleblowers, On to the Senate!

Please login to join discussion

Receive Daily Alerts

Subscribe to receive daily breaking news and legislative developments sent to your inbox.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Most Popular

Whistleblower Jóhannes Stefánsson Plans to Testify at Fishrot Trial in Namibia

WNN Exclusive Interview with Social Security Whistleblowers Sarah Carver and Jennifer Griffith — Part 1

Tell President Biden to “Finish the Job” for Whistleblowers

Change the Culture, Make National Whistleblower Day Permanent

Whistleblower Raised Concerns of Rodents, Spiders in Kitchen of Childcare Facility, Then Fired; OSHA Rules They Were Retaliated Against

U.S. and UK Advocates Come Together for Whistleblowing Awareness Week

Whistleblower Poll

Whistleblower Poll
Whistleblower Poll

Exclusive Marist Poll: Overwhelming Public Support Among Likely Voters For Increased Whistleblower Protections

byGeoff Schweller
October 6, 2020

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

STAY INFORMED.
Subscribe to receive breaking whistleblower updates.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

About Us

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Careers

Subscribe

  • Daily Mail
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • YouTube Channel

Contribute

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Reprint Guidelines

Your Experience

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Help

  • The Whistleblowers Handbook
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Advertise
Whistleblower Network News

Whistleblower Network News is an independent online newspaper providing our readers with up-to-date information on whistleblowing. Our goal is to be the best source of information on important qui tam, anti-corruption, compliance, and whistleblower law developments. 

Submit an Article

Copyright © 2021, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

This Newspaper/Web Site is made available by the publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Newspaper/Web Site publisher. The Newspaper/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER DAY IN 2023
No Result
View All Result
  • Exclusives
  • Government
    • False Claims-Qui Tam
    • Federal Employees
    • Intelligence
  • Corporate
    • CFTC & Commodities
    • Dodd-Frank
    • IRS & Tax
    • SEC & Securities
  • Features
  • Legislation
  • International
    • Foreign Corruption
  • Rewards
  • Whistleblower of the Week
  • Environment & Climate
  • Opinion
  • Editorial
  • Employment
    • Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers
    • Retaliation
    • OSHA
  • Media
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • National Whistleblower Day
  • Whistleblower Poll
  • Whistleblower Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Resources for Locating An Attorney
    • The New Whistleblowers Handbook
  • National Whistleblower Day ’23

Copyright © 2020, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

Become a Whistleblower Network News Subscriber

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Subscribe to WNN

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Subscribe to WNN

Add New Playlist

Go to mobile version