Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation
: Tennessee Business Litigation Law BlogNo Title VII Retaliation Protection For Employee Who Cooperated
By Branham & Day
Is cooperating with a sexual harassment investigation enough to give an employee protection under Title VII’s “opposition” and “participation” clauses? Not necessarily, according to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions protect employees who “oppose” unlawful acts and who “participate” in investigations, proceedings, or hearings.
In a recent case, a Metropolitan Government of Nashville 30-year employee was fired after cooperating as a witness in an internal sexual harassment investigation. The court held that there was no protection for the employee under either clause. There was not the kind of overt opposition required under Title VII because the employee merely cooperated with the investigator’s request for an interview, during which she related unfavorable information about the alleged harasser. The employee did not initiate a complaint prior to participating in the investigation nor did she take any further action following the investigation – actions generally seen as overt opposition.
In addition, because there was no formal EEOC charge that prompted the investigation (there was just an internal complaint), the employee was not protected under Title VII’s participation clause. The court followed the general rule that an employee seeking protection under this clause must have been involved in an investigation involving a formal EEOC charge, rather than an internal, in-house investigation, which was the case here. Read the opinion here.
Full post as published by Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog on January 03, 2007 (boomark / email).
Unlawful Retaliation for Sexual Harassment Claim
Title VII retaliatory discharge retaliation requires proof of participation in protected activities
Women and the Law
Ttile IX
Employee Lawsuits (An Introduction and Topic Overview)
How employers can cope with the siege of employee lawsuits
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Employee Lawsuits: Negligent Hiring and Retention
Employers must check references, criminal records, other background material.
Truth In Lending Act
Consumer Loans and Consumer Credit Protection Act
Police Chief Whistleblower
Argentine Township agrees to pay former employee $650,000 harassment and retaliation settlement.
Employee Retaliation
UPS pays $254,000 settlement in whistleblower lawsuit.
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
allegedly failed to give policyholders discounted rates to which they were entitled.
Police Whistleblower
Officer awarded $980,000 for whistleblower violations and retaliation.
Whistleblower Retaliation
Frankfort to pay $500,000 settlement in employment lawsuit.
imbee Data Collection
Industrious Kid, Inc. pays $130,000 civil penalty for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

Public Employee Enjoys Rare First Amendment Retaliation Success
What is Retaliation under Massachusetts Employment Law
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Employment retaliation at the Supreme Court
Supreme Court takes three employment law cases
Supreme Court Agrees to Review Ruling Narrowly Construing Title VII’s Protection Against Retaliation







