Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Crawford: Answering Questions in an Internal Investigation Is Protected Opposition

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 3, 2026

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville rejects a rule that protected only workers who proactively complained and not those who disclosed harassment when interviewed.

The employee spoke during the employer's inquiry

When the employer investigated rumors of sexual harassment, Vicky Crawford answered questions and described sexually harassing conduct by the employee-relations director. The employer later fired her and attributed the decision to alleged embezzlement.

Opposition does not require initiating a complaint

The Court gave the statutory word oppose its ordinary meaning. A worker can resist or express disapproval of discrimination by giving a disapproving account in response to questions just as surely as by starting the conversation.

The narrow rule would undermine internal investigations

Protecting a self-initiated report but not the same statement made during an employer interview would give employees reason to remain silent. That result would also conflict with Title VII's preventive purpose and the incentives employers have to investigate workplace harassment.

Other defenses remained open

The Court reversed summary judgment on the opposition-clause issue and remanded. It did not decide the participation-clause question or the employer's other factual and legal defenses, which the lower courts had not reached.

Key takeaways

• Treat truthful responses in an internal inquiry as potential protected activity.
• Document who asked the questions and what the employee reported.
• Examine timing and consistency of the asserted termination reason.
• Keep opposition-clause and participation-clause theories analytically separate.