Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Crawford: Answering an Employer's Harassment Questions Was Protected Opposition

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 9, 2026

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County examined retaliation protection for a longtime employee who reported sexual harassment during her employer's internal inquiry.

Crawford answered questions in an internal inquiry

During an investigation into rumors about an employee-relations director, Crawford told an investigator that the director had sexually harassed her. She had not initiated a separate complaint before being questioned.

The employer later discharged her

The employer took no action against the accused director but soon fired Crawford, alleging embezzlement. She claimed the reason was retaliatory.

Opposition includes responsive disclosure

Using the ordinary meaning of oppose, the Court held that an employee may resist or express disapproval by answering questions. Title VII did not protect only workers who start the conversation or engage in continuous active conduct.

The retaliation case returned for unresolved defenses

The Court reversed summary judgment under the opposition clause and remanded. Because that ground resolved the issue, it did not decide the separate scope of the participation clause.

Key takeaways

• Treat responsive witness statements about discrimination as potentially protected activity.
• Preserve interview questions, answers, participants, and follow-up decisions.
• Separate the opposition clause from the participation clause.
• Test the stated reason for later discipline against timing, comparators, and prior practice.