About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Rich. J. L. & Pub. Int. 291 (2009-2010)
Title VII Antiretaliation: The United States Supreme Court's Decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee on the Scope of the Opposition Clause

handle is hein.journals/richlapin13 and id is 307 raw text is: TITLE VII ANTIRETALIATION: THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN CRAWFORD V METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE ON THE SCOPE OF THE OPPOSITION CLAUSE Ryan Nevin* I. INTRODUCTION Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate race discrimination.1 The statute's prohibition on sex discrimination was added as an eleventh-hour amendment in an effort to kill the bill.'2 The effort failed, and the bill quickly passed as amended, leaving little legislative history to aid the judicial system's interpretation of the Act.3 Thus, courts have had to develop their own rationales to interpret the statute, leading to disparate outcomes among the respective circuits and slow progress as the Supreme Court creates new precedent one factual scenario at a time.4 This Note discusses the interpretation of the opposition clause within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19645 in the context of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee.6 In general, the opposition clause protects an employee from retaliation by his employer if he opposes his employer's illegal conduct.7 Part II summarizes the facts and the holding of Crawford. Part III describes Title VII discrimination in general and antiretaliation in particular. Part IV discusses the United States Supreme Court's rationale in Crawford, and Part V questions the interpretation of the opposition clause. Finally, Part VI agrees * J.D. Candidate, 2011, Loyola University New Orleans, College of Law; B.S.M., 2008, Tulane University, A.B. Freeman School of Business. 1. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2006). 2. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 767 n.1 (1998) (Thomas, J., dissenting). 3. Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986). 4. See id. 5. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2006). 6. Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, Tenn., 129 S. Ct. 846 (2009). 7. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2006).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most