Supreme Court makes it easier to sue for retaliation
January 27, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Investigations, Recent Decisions, Special Report

A new Supreme Court ruling sends managers a message about conducting complaint investigations: Watch how employees serving as witnesses are treated — or the company could be hit with a retaliation claim.
The background of the case:
Vicky Crawford worked for the Metropolitan School District in Nashville, TN. One of her co-workers filed a sexual harassment complaint against their supervisor.
As part of the ensuing investigation, Crawford was asked if she’d ever witnessed any harassment. She said, yes, she’d seen the supervisor harass other employees — and was harassed herself on several occasions. She provided a list of inappropriate sexual comments the supervisor had said to her during her tenure.
Despite that testimony, the alleged harasser was never fired or disciplined. Shortly after the investigation, Crawford was fired — the school district claimed she’d been embezzling.
She sued, claiming the embezzlement allegations against her were false and she was really fired in retaliation for her comments during the investigation.
Protection for witnesses?
Two lower courts ruled against Crawford, stating that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions only apply to employees who file their own discrimination claims or participate in formal investigations by the EEOC.
But the Supreme Court disagreed. Employees are protected from retaliation whenever they “oppose” an employer’s unlawful actions — and, according to the Court, that includes an employee who participates in an internal investigation.
The lesson for managers: Be cautious when dealing with any employees involved in a complaint investigation. Employees who confirm allegations of harassment or discrimination can’t be treated differently than those who don’t.
And, of course, it’s key to document all performance or behavioral issues regarding those employees in case the company has to fight future retaliation claims.
Cite: Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
Tags: investigation, retaliation, Supreme Court, witness

January 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
So did they have any proof of her embezzling?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Embezzlement – does that mean there’s a school disctrict out there with money?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Will this also cover “whistle blowers”?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
If Ms Crawforh was terminated for embezzlement, I believe that the school board would have had to file charges against employee, give employee leave of absence (paid or unpaid) pending investigation of charges, for cause of termination being embezzlement to hold up in court. Sounds to me that retaliation for her actions was the root cause for her termination. Probably an internal can of worms not wanting to be opened.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
What is the time limit an employee has to file, especially if they follow employers policy on such matters, that could run several years after the harassment or retaliation.