Common sense prevails

Common sense prevails

Washington Post: Vicky Crawford was approached in 2002 by a human resources officer in her Tennessee government office and asked whether she was aware of inappropriate behavior by a male supervisor. Crawford, a 30-year employee of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro), responded by citing several episodes of sexual harassment.

Metro eventually declined to bring charges against the supervisor but shortly thereafter accused Crawford of embezzlement and fired her. Crawford sued, claiming she was the victim of retaliation, but lower courts in Tennessee dismissed her lawsuit, concluding that federal law protects those who lodge such complaints but not those, such as Crawford, who merely substantiate the claims of others.

In a blow both for common sense and a clear reading of the law, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that federal law does protect Crawford and the myriad others in the workplace who respond truthfully to queries about inappropriate behavior. The justices correctly concluded that stripping Crawford of the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act would undermine the very purpose of the law — namely, to root out discrimination and retaliation by giving purported victims the legal means to hold perpetrators accountable.

The justices came to this conclusion not through an “activist” interjection of their political views but through a simple reading of the statute itself. To wit: It is unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees” who “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” by the law.

The court’s ruling does not mean that Crawford will prevail in her lawsuit; she must still prove that her dismissal was a result of retaliation and not for substantive and legitimate reasons. But what it does mean is that she and others like her will be protected by federal law from employers intent on retaliating against those who speak out against wrongdoing.