CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE &
MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY, 
NO. 06-1595 & NO. 06-1505
U.S. SUPREME COURT, ORAL ARGUMENTS

Introduction:
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in two employment discrimination cases. Both cases involve employee-employer relations. One case concerns the extent of employee protection against retaliatory actions while the other focuses on the burden of proof in demonstrating the existence of a “reasonable business justification” for termination. The Supreme Court’s rulings likely will have a direct impact on the future interpretation of employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE
211 Fed. App’x. 373, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts of the Case: 
Plaintiff, Vicky Crawford, was an employee of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee for thirty years before she was fired in early 2003. Prior to that action, in the fall of 2001, Metro hired Dr. Hughes as the employee relations director for the school district. As part of his duties, Dr. Hughes was responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination. In May of 2002, Dr. Hughes was contacted by an attorney from the Metro Legal Department who explained that he had received multiple concerns from the administrative offices about incidents of sexual harassment by Dr. Hughes. The complaint was re-directed to Dr. Garcia, the director of schools, because of the conflict of interest. Ms. Frazier, the assistant director of human resources, was assigned to investigate the complaint. To begin her investigation, Ms. Frazier contacted employees who had worked with Hughes, in order to conduct an interview with them. One of those employees was plaintiff Crawford.

During the internal investigation, Ms. Crawford alleged that Hughes had sexually harassed her and other employees. While Ms. Frazier’s final report concluded that Mr. Hughes had engaged in “inappropriate and unprofessional behavior,” no adverse action was taken against him. Ms. Crawford subsequently was fired from her position, after being accused of embezzlement and drug use. These charges were later determined unfounded. Moreover, three other employees, who had made similar allegations against Dr. Hughes, were terminated from their positions at Metro. 

Issue of the Case: 
Whether an employee’s non-initiated participation in an internal investigation of a supervisor’s discriminatory actions is protected from retaliation under Title VII. 

Arguments of the Parties: 
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employees are protected from discriminatory acts of retaliation by an employer. Specifically, employees are shielded from termination as the result of opposing an unlawful employment practice or participating in a discrimination investigation proceeding. 

Plaintiff, Ms. Crawford, argues that her opposition to Dr. Hughes’ unlawful sexual harassment and her participation in the subsequent investigation were protected under Title VII, and thus her termination constituted an unlawful employment practice.

The defendants argue that Ms. Crawford’s actions were not protected under Title VII either for her opposition or her participation. Specifically, her actions were not “direct [and] consistent opposing activities,” because Ms. Crawford did not initiate the complaint nor did she take any additional actions after the internal investigation. Additionally, participation in the internal investigation was not a protected activity in the absence of a pending EEOC investigation. In Ms. Crawford’s case, there was no charge filed prior to her termination. 

Ms. Crawford argues that the court should extend protection under the participation clause, to include internal investigations that occur outside an EEOC investigation. She asserts that in the absence of such protection, employers’ sexual harassment practices would be protected, and employees would be silenced for fear of retaliation from statements made in internal investigations. 

The district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held for the employer. The court concluded that the employee had not engaged in a protected activity when she gave a statement during an internal investigation initiated by her employer. Particularly, the decision stated that the employer’s conduct was not covered by Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. Under the analysis of the Court of Appeals and the argument outlined by the employer, protection against retaliation is only available under two circumstances: if the employee had initiated the complaint or filed a formal charge with the EEOC. The court reasoned that this stipulation protects employers who proactively conduct internal investigations, by shifting the burden of proof to the other party in these situations. 

MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY
461 F.3d 134, Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts of the Case: As a result of efforts to reduce staff, a research laboratory in upstate New York terminated thirty-one employees, thirty of whom were over the age of 40. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory was owned by the Department of Energy and thus followed staffing limits formulated by the Department of Energy and the Navy. As a result of these limitations, the lab was told to compile a list of employees to be terminated. The lab utilized an employee ranking based on a number of criteria, including performance, flexibility, and criticality of their skills. Components of this ranking analysis included whether the employee could be trained in other areas of the lab and whether the skills of the individual employee were critical to the workings of the lab. After employees were ranked, managers of the lab were instructed to identify those with the lowest scores for termination. In an attempt to comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the managers were instructed to conduct an analysis to determine whether the “layoffs might have a disparate impact on the protected class of employees” over 40. A review board was then to assess this analysis. 

Issue of the Case: Whether the employee or the employer bears the burden of proof in demonstrating the “reasonable business justification.” 

Arguments of the Parties: Under the ADEA, employees over the age of 40 are protected from age-related discrimination. Discrimination can be proven if adverse employment actions demonstrate a “disparate impact” on those over the age of 40. Employers, however, are not liable if they can demonstrate that the action, which appears to discriminate on the basis of age, had a reasonable business justification. Such a justification is an employment practice that relies on specific non-age factors and constitutes a reasonable means to the employer’s legitimate goals. Once the employer asserts a reasonable business justification, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove otherwise.

The lower courts concluded that the lab employees established a prima facie case of disparate-impact under the ADEA. The employer then asserted that the termination was reasonably justified, as it was part of a mandated “involuntary reduction in force.” Additionally, the employer noted that they used procedures to ensure ADEA adherence. The employees then asserted that their ranking methodology was not a “business necessity” as the lab could have created “suitable alternative measures.” Specifically, the employees argued that the lab could have designed a plan with less influence of subjectivity.   

The trial court ruled in favor of the employees, but that decision was overruled by the New York Court of Appeals. The appellate court correctly asserted that the business necessity test is not applicable in the ADEA context, citing the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. City of Jackson, but rather, a test of reasonableness applies. The appellate court utilized a test of reasonableness, as opposed to a test “business necessity.” The court explained that after an employer asserts a reasonable business justification, the employee must prove that this justification is unreasonable. Therefore, the New York Court of Appeals concluded the employees had failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the evaluation system utilized by the employer. 

Policy Practice:

In Crawford, the Sixth Circuit decision is in direct conflict with other circuits. Moreover, the Bush Administration has filed an amicus brief in the case, asserting the concern that witnesses will be less likely to participate in workplace harassment investigations if they are not protected from termination. The pending oral arguments and subsequent decision by the Court will clarify the meaning of protection from retaliatory acts under Title VII. 

Similarly in Meacham, the Bush Administration and the AARP’s amicus briefs argue that employers should bear the responsibility of proving the reasonableness of their actions. The Supreme Court’s decision could have grave implications on the procedure of employment discrimination litigation.

Links: 

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 211 Fed. App’x. 373 (6th Cir., 2006). 
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0828n-06.pdf

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 461 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2005). 
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTczNzgtY3YgdyBEaXNzZW50LnBkZg==/02-7378-cv%20w%20Dissent.pdf 

Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/editedCases/smivcit.html