TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Retaliation case addresses sexual harassment

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: January 30, 2009

This week the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Vicky Crawford vs. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

The court held that the prohibition against retaliation found in Title VII applies to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative but in response to an employer's internal investigation.

In 2002, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by its employee retaliations director.

When asked during the course of the investigation by a human resources officer whether she had witnessed inappropriate behavior by the director, Crawford disclosed that she herself had been sexually harassed.

Two other women employees advised the human resources department that they had been sexually harassed. Although the employer took no action against the director, it fired all three employees shortly after concluding its investigation.

Crawford filed suit alleging a violation of Title VII's prohibitions against retaliation. Title VII contains two clauses prohibiting retaliatory conduct by employers.

The first clause makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because the employee has opposed any discriminatory employment practice.

The second clause prohibits discrimination by an employee because the employee has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation of discrimination.

The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the employer because Crawford had not initiated a complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment.

Instead, Crawford had simply answered questions in an investigation started by someone else. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and the case proceeded to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the employer, sending the case back to the trial court to proceed toward trial.

In an opinion written by Justice David Souter, the Supreme Court found that answering questions was sufficient to qualify for retaliation protection. At the heart of the court's decision was its fear that without such protection, employees would be unlikely to honestly participate in an employer's investigation of sexual harassment complaints and other acts of discrimination.

The court reasoned, "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."

Generally, Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees for each working day of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
Title VII doesn't apply to independent contractors. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, religion and gender. Title VII also prohibits sexual harassment.

To initiate a complaint, an employee must file a complaint with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

An employee may recover compensatory damages such as lost wages, pain, anguish, medical expenses, counseling as well as punitive damages available.

Caps on compensatory damages, starting at $50,000, are based upon the size of the employer.

Randall Love is an attorney with Randall J. Love & Associates, New Port Richey, and practices in the areas of employment law, commercial and real estate litigation, personal injury and probate litigation. He is a certified Circuit Court mediator.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT