The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by Gene Hughes. When Veronica Frazier, a Metro human resources officer, asked P, a 30-year Metro employee, whether she had witnessed 'inappropriate behavior' on the part of Hughes, P described several instances of sexually harassing behavior. Two other employees also reported being sexually harassed by Hughes. D took no action against Hughes, but it did fire P and the two other accusers soon after finishing the investigation, saying in P's case that it was for embezzlement. P claimed retaliation and filed a Title VII violation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), followed by this suit. The Title VII anti-retaliation provision has two clauses, making it 'an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . [1] because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or [2] because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.' The first is known as the 'opposition clause,' the other as the 'participation clause,' and P accused D of violating both. The Court granted summary judgment for D holding that P could not satisfy the opposition clause because she had not 'instigated or initiated any complaint,' but had 'merely answered questions by investigators in an already-pending internal investigation, initiated by someone else.' P's claim also failed under the participation clause, which Sixth Circuit precedent confined to protecting ''an employee's participation in an employer's internal investigation . . . where that investigation occurs pursuant to a pending EEOC charge'' (not the case here). The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that the opposition clause ''demands active, consistent 'opposing' activities to warrant . . . protection against retaliation.'' Also, P could show no violation of the participation clause because D's internal investigation was not conducted ''pursuant to a pending EEOC charge.'' P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.