## Facts

- Metro’s Human Resources Department opened an internal investigation into rumors that the school district’s employee-relations director, Dr. Gene Hughes, had sexually harassed female employees.
- An HR official interviewed Vicky S. Crawford, a long-time Metro employee, as part of that inquiry.
- In response to questioning, Crawford described multiple incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Hughes, including sexually explicit remarks and gestures.
- The investigation found Hughes acted “inappropriately,” but Metro did not discipline him.
- Shortly thereafter, Metro terminated Crawford, citing alleged embezzlement and drug-related misconduct; other women who reported harassment were also terminated or disciplined.
- Crawford sued under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, alleging she was fired for reporting harassment during the internal investigation.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee engages in protected “opposition” under Title VII § 704(a) by disclosing alleged harassment while answering questions in an employer’s internal investigation, without having initiated a complaint.
2. Whether excluding such cooperation from the opposition clause would be consistent with Title VII’s anti-retaliation purpose.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court held that Crawford’s statements during the internal investigation constituted protected activity under Title VII’s opposition clause.
- The Court concluded “oppose” carries its ordinary meaning and can include communicating disapproval by responding to an employer’s questions.
- The Court resolved the case under the opposition clause and did not decide whether the participation clause applied to purely internal investigations.
- Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred to stress that “opposition” requires some communicative expression and does not include unexpressed, private disagreement.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s opposition clause protects employees who communicate resistance to or disapproval of unlawful employment practices, including by answering questions in an internal workplace investigation.
- Protected “opposition” does not require initiating a complaint or engaging in “active, consistent” advocacy; disclosure in response to employer inquiry can suffice.
- Reading the opposition clause to exclude employees who cooperate only when questioned would deter reporting and conflict with Title VII’s objective of encouraging detection and correction of discrimination.
- Although the participation clause was not decided, the case establishes that internal-investigation cooperation may be protected through the opposition clause when the employee conveys disapproval of discriminatory conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII forbids retaliation against an employee who reports discriminatory harassment when questioned during an employer’s internal investigation, because that disclosure is protected “opposition” to unlawful employment practices.


Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 555 U.S. 271 (2009)