## Facts

- Rite Way Service, Inc. employed Mekeva Tennort as a general cleaner at a Mississippi junior high school during multiple school-year terms.
- In early August 2011, Willie Harris became Tennort’s interim supervisor.
- Tennort observed Harris engage in conduct toward coworker Linda Quarles that Tennort viewed as sexual in nature, including a gesture mimicking a slap to Quarles’s buttocks accompanied by “ooh wee.”
- On August 11, 2011, after Harris commented on Quarles having a cell phone in her back pocket, Tennort remarked that Harris must have been looking closely at Quarles’s behind to notice it.
- Quarles filed an internal complaint alleging sexual harassment by Harris, and during the employer’s investigation Tennort was interviewed as a witness.
- Tennort relayed what she had observed and reiterated her comment suggesting Harris had been looking at Quarles’s behind.
- After the investigation, Harris remained in place; the EEOC presented evidence that Harris’s treatment of Tennort worsened after her interview.
- Tennort was terminated within weeks of her interview; the EEOC alleged the stated reasons were pretext and that the termination was retaliation for her participation in the investigation.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s “reasonable belief” requirement for protected “opposition” applies when an employee’s opposition is reactive (answering questions in an internal investigation) rather than proactive (initiating a complaint).
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute that Tennort reasonably believed Harris’s conduct toward Quarles was unlawful sexual harassment under Title VII.
3. Whether the EEOC presented sufficient evidence of causation between Tennort’s protected activity and her termination to avoid summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the “reasonable belief” standard applies to both proactive and reactive opposition under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.
- The court held the EEOC produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find Tennort reasonably believed the reported conduct was unlawful under Title VII, even if it might not ultimately meet the hostile-environment threshold.
- The court rejected Rite Way’s alternative basis for affirmance that the EEOC lacked causation evidence at the summary-judgment stage.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s opposition clause protects employees from retaliation when they oppose practices they reasonably believe are made unlawful by Title VII; the employee need not prove an actual Title VII violation.
- “Opposition” includes employer-solicited statements given as a witness during an internal investigation; protection does not depend on who initiated the complaint.
- At summary judgment in a retaliation case, close timing and evidence of worsened treatment following protected activity can support a jury inference of causation.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reinstated the EEOC’s retaliation claim, ruling that a witness who answers questions in an internal harassment investigation is protected under Title VII’s opposition clause if she had a reasonable belief the conduct was unlawful, and that the EEOC’s evidence on reasonableness and causation was sufficient to proceed to trial.


EEOC v. Rite Way Serv., Inc., 819 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2016)