## Facts

- J. Neil DeMasters worked for about five years as an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) consultant in Carilion’s behavioral health unit.
- A coworker reported to DeMasters that the coworker’s supervisor had subjected him to severe sexual harassment.
- DeMasters helped the coworker bring a complaint to human resources and remained involved as the employer addressed the complaint.
- DeMasters communicated to HR and management concerns about the adequacy of the employer’s response, including continued exposure of the coworker to the alleged harasser.
- Carilion terminated DeMasters, allegedly because he supported the coworker’s complaint and criticized the employer’s handling of the investigation rather than taking a “pro-employer” position.
- DeMasters sued under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, alleging retaliatory discharge for protected opposition to unlawful employment practices.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s conduct must be assessed as a whole to determine if it constitutes protected “opposition” under Title VII, even if no single act is independently sufficient.
2. Whether Title VII retaliation claims are limited by a “manager rule” requiring employees with complaint-handling duties to “step outside” their roles to receive protection.

## Decision

- The court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that protected opposition under Title VII is evaluated by considering the employee’s course of conduct as a whole.
- The court held that DeMasters plausibly alleged protected oppositional activity because his actions, taken together, communicated a belief that the employer was engaging in prohibited discrimination.
- The court held that the “manager rule” does not apply in Title VII retaliation cases.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s Opposition Clause protects an employee who, viewed in context and as a whole, communicates opposition to conduct the employee reasonably believes violates Title VII.
- Courts should not fragment alleged oppositional conduct into isolated acts when determining whether the employee engaged in protected activity.
- Title VII does not categorically exclude employees with HR/EAP or similar job responsibilities from anti-retaliation protection; they need not “step outside” their job role to be protected.
- Interpreting Title VII retaliation narrowly in a way that deters internal reporting and compliance efforts is inconsistent with the statute’s remedial purpose.

## Conclusion

The court held that DeMasters plausibly stated a Title VII retaliation claim because his overall conduct supporting and pressing a sexual-harassment complaint could constitute protected opposition, and employees who handle complaints as part of their jobs are not barred from Title VII protection by a “manager rule.”


DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2015)