Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Crawford: Answering Questions in an Internal Investigation Can Be Protected Opposition

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 12, 2026

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County involved a long-time employee who described sexual harassment during an internal investigation and later alleged that her discharge was retaliation for that report.

The employee answered questions about alleged harassment

During an investigation into rumors about an employee-relations director, Crawford reported sexually harassing conduct directed at her. The employer later fired her on a stated embezzlement ground.

The lower court demanded active and consistent opposition

The Sixth Circuit ruled that Crawford had not opposed discrimination because she did not initiate a complaint and merely responded to questions. It also treated the internal inquiry as outside the participation clause.

Ordinary opposition includes a disapproving response

The Supreme Court held that a person can resist or oppose unlawful conduct by answering questions just as surely as by starting the discussion. Title VII does not protect identical words only when volunteered.

Other elements remained for remand

The Court resolved coverage under the opposition clause but did not decide the employer’s remaining defenses or ultimate retaliation liability.

Key takeaways

• Protect witnesses and interviewees from retaliation during internal investigations.
• Record the substance and timing of reports, employment decisions, and stated reasons.
• Analyze opposition-clause coverage separately from the participation clause.
• Preserve evidence bearing on causation and pretext after the protected report.