Retaliation · Federal · Title VII

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

555 U.S. 271 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009

A 30-year employee answered questions in her employer's internal investigation of a colleague's alleged harassment, describing conduct she had experienced. She was fired soon after the investigation closed, on stated grounds of embezzlement. No one was disciplined over the conduct she described.

The Court held that answering questions in an employer's internal investigation is protected opposition. A worker does not have to initiate the complaint to be protected.

Summary judgment for the employer, reversed

Reported outcome

Reversed; the retaliation claim was allowed to proceed.

Completeness reading

91/100

ignita-completeness-v1 · illustrative

Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.

The events, kept in order.

Drawn from the reported decision. Nothing is interpreted at this stage — each entry simply holds when it happened and what happened.

  1. Step 1

    Interviewed in the employer's internal investigation

    Asked whether she had witnessed inappropriate behavior, she described specific conduct directed at her.

    Protected activity or key conduct

  2. Step 2

    Investigation closed with no discipline

    The employee who was the subject of the investigation was not disciplined.

  3. Step 3

    Terminated shortly after

    She was fired after roughly 30 years of employment, on a stated ground of embezzlement.

  4. Step 4

    Two other participants also let go

    Other employees who cooperated in the investigation were also terminated.

What the engine reads here

This is the case that most often looks like nothing in a raw timeline: no complaint filed, only an interview. The record becomes legible when the interview is captured as its own dated event with named participants — exactly the entry most workers never think to keep.

Pattern and class signal

Individual pattern with organizational signal: an investigation that produced no discipline for the accused but a termination for the witness is a practice-level indicator, not a personal one.

Preview. Not legal advice. Attorney-reviewed: false.

Your own record

Every matter here began as small, ordinary entries someone almost didn't keep.