Class 18 3-14-13英语教案.ppt

* * Note –often courts think in terms of McDonnell Douglas in treating these cases: requiring defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, which plaintiff must rebut. * Opposition: Employer violated VII or parallel statute Some jurisdictions require that employer actually violated VII/statute; others permit plainitff’s reasonable belief Employee’s opposition conduct was reasonable.(no crimes, no extreme disloyalty) [remember McDonnell Douglas: illegal protests not protected] * Sexual harassment investigation---HR person questioned Crawford, who told about harassment; Crawford was then fired. Suit—retaliation Lower courts: summary judgment for the defendant—plaintiff cannot prove opposition because she did no initiate the claim; she cannot show participation because courts require that eeoc charge be pending in order for her internal testimony to be protected Defendant: if plaintiffs can easily establish their participation in internal investigations is “protected activity,” then employers will avoid conducting such investigations because of the threat of litigation. COURT—failure to conduct investigations would cause employers to lose the Faragher defense. * To stress that an employee’s silent opposition does not qualify as opposition. It must be expressed. * * What if Crawford had described but not really objected to what Hughes was doing? The Supreme Court, in concluding that Crawford opposed, assumes that her interview with the HR person consisted of critical description of Hughes. If Crawford had believed that what Hughes did was just fine, the result might have been different. * Employers will be motivated to conduct investigations because they want to invoke the ellerth faragher defense. * * Meeting: boss giggles about statement in employee’s file and plaintiff complains Plaintiff is punished for complaining Lower court: summary judgment/ appellate reverses SCt. Assuming the standard is did plaintiff reasonably believe that the