Vicki Crawford was interviewed during an employer’s internal investigation into “rumors of sexual harassment” involving a manager. Crawford described several instances of sexually harassing behavior that the manager directed at her. Two other employee also reported being sexually harassed by the same manager. The employer took no action against the alleged harasser-manager, but fired Crawford and the two other accusers soon after completing the investigation, claiming that Crawford was terminated for embezzlement. The lower courts (trial court and court of appeal) affirmed the dismissal of Crawford’s retaliation lawsuit, holding that merely answering questions during an investigation is not a protected activity.
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that there is no reason to doubt that a person can “oppose” (within the meaning of anti-retaliation laws) by responding to someone else’s question just as surely as by initiating a discussion about the same (harassment) issue. And, nothing in the law requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on his own initiative, but not one who reports the same when being asked a question. Crawford v Metro. Gov’s of Nashville & Davidson County (2009).
Two facts would make this type of retaliation case stronger to the judge / jury and even an attorney who is trying to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to make a case: (1) the fact that three people who participated in the investigation were terminated seems to be much more an a coincidence; and (2) the embezzlement charge sounds like an “overkill” and in itself suggests some type of retaliatory anger toward an employee.