Souter Opinion Disdains ‘Freakish Rule’ Barring Protection in Bias Probe

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on behalf of a worker seeking retaliation protection for cooperating in an internal probe of sexual harassment.

Justice David H. Souter wrote the unanimous opinion for the court, delving into the meaning of the word “oppose” in the Title VII statute protecting employees who “oppose” discrimination. His opinion (PDF) found that Nashville, Tenn., school employee Vicky Crawford was entitled to the same retaliation protections under Title VII as employees who file formal harassment charges, SCOTUSblog reports.

Crawford was fired in 2003 after working more than 30 years in the school system, the Associated Press reports. Crawford claims she was fired for telling company investigators that a school official under investigation had also harassed her.

Crawford told investigators that the school official had once grabbed his crotch in response to her question, "What's up?" She also said he repeatedly put his crotch up against her window and on one occasion he grabbed her head and pulled it to his crotch, according to the opinion.

Souter wrote that disallowing protection for Crawford would create an incentive for employees to keep quiet during bias investigations. He also said Crawford's allegations qualified as opposition entitled to protection under Title VII.

Souter said people who disagree with a position such as capital punishment are said to "oppose" the practice, even if they don’t write letters or take to the streets.

“There is, then, no reason to doubt that a person can ‘oppose’ by responding to someone else’s question just as surely as by provoking the discussion," Souter said. "Nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule" that protects an employee who takes the initiative to report discrimination, but doesn't protect a person who reports bias in response to a question from her boss.

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment, saying their understanding is that the opinion "does not and should not extend beyond employees who testify in internal investigations or engage in analogous purposive conduct."

The case is Crawford v. Metro Government of Nashville.