## Facts

- Karen Laughlin worked as secretary to the airport manager at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA).
- A co-worker, Kathy LaSauce, pursued an internal EEO complaint alleging retaliation by her supervisor after LaSauce supported another employee’s discrimination complaint.
- Laughlin found on her supervisor’s desk an unsigned draft letter and related internal materials concerning LaSauce’s retaliation allegations.
- Believing MWAA was attempting to undermine LaSauce’s claim, Laughlin, without authorization, removed the documents, photocopied them, and mailed copies to LaSauce.
- During later litigation by LaSauce, Laughlin admitted taking and copying the documents.
- MWAA terminated Laughlin for removing, copying, and disseminating confidential documents from her supervisor’s desk.
- Laughlin sued MWAA and the airport manager alleging Title VII retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination under Virginia law.

## Issues

1. Whether Laughlin’s conduct constituted “participation” in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), triggering broad anti-retaliation protection.
2. If not participation, whether her conduct was protected “opposition” to perceived unlawful retaliation, considering the reasonableness of the manner and extent of her actions.
3. Whether the district court improperly converted defendants’ motion into one for summary judgment without adequate notice and opportunity to conduct discovery.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed judgment for MWAA.
- Laughlin’s conduct was not protected “participation” because it did not occur within an existing EEOC charge, investigation, or Title VII proceeding.
- Her conduct, at most, qualified as “opposition,” but it was unreasonable because it involved unauthorized taking and dissemination of confidential employer documents.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by treating the motion as one for summary judgment because the motion’s caption and supporting affidavits provided notice, and Laughlin did not seek discovery relief under Rule 56.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s participation clause protects involvement in an actual “investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title VII; anticipatory, self-initiated evidence gathering outside a pending process is not participation.
- Opposition activity is protected only when the employee’s conduct is reasonable in manner and degree.
- Courts evaluate opposition by balancing the employee’s interest in opposing discrimination against the employer’s legitimate interests, including workplace discipline and confidentiality of personnel and internal documents.
- Unauthorized seizure, copying, and dissemination of confidential employer documents for use in prospective litigation can fall outside Title VII’s anti-retaliation protection when it materially conflicts with the employer’s confidentiality interests.
- A district court may convert a motion to dismiss into summary judgment where the motion signals that alternative relief is sought, evidentiary materials are submitted, and the nonmovant fails to pursue Rule 56 discovery procedures.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that an employee who covertly removed and distributed confidential workplace documents to assist a co-worker’s retaliation claim did not engage in Title VII-protected participation and did not engage in protected opposition because the method was unreasonable; MWAA’s termination decision therefore did not violate Title VII, and summary judgment was properly granted.


Laughlin v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 1998)