Crawford: The Supreme Court Redraws Retaliation Law
Why Attend?
On January 26, 2009, the Supreme Court issued Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, a unanimous decision holding that federal law protects workers from employment retaliation after they cooperate with an employer's investigation of allegations of discrimination or harassment. Rejecting employer arguments that retaliation would become an "easy charge" for certain employees, the Court reaffirmed worker protection now in place in most of the United States, and unequivocally overturned a Sixth Circuit ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) does not apply to employees who merely cooperate with an internal probe, rather than complain on their own or take part in a formal investigation. In so holding, this decision is very likely to lead to an increase in worker retaliation claims, along with greater caution by employers as to which workers should be interviewed. This teleseminar will take a hard look at the Crawford decision and anti-retaliation law generally.
What You Will Learn
Whether you are an experienced employment law practitioner or are new to this field of law, learning about the effect of the Crawford decision on employment law and litigation is relevant to your practice. Besides reviewing the case and its history, our distinguished faculty of plaintiff and defense lawyers will discuss the following topics:
In light of Crawford, should employers have a robust anti-retaliation policy and redress program like their sex harassment policies and complaint systems?
Will there be a Faragher/Ellerth-type affirmative defense to retaliation claims?
How visible/active/overt must opposition be for it to be considered “protected activity”?
Must the opposition be based on a reasonable belief? Why was there no reference to that standard in Crawford?
Does Crawford provide any insight into the resolution of the incipient harassment victim?
Why did Justice Souter’s opinion for seven justices totally ignore the concurring opinion?
What did the dissent consider that was not covered by the majority opinion?
Is there still a viable participation clause argument in an internal investigation case, and if so, is there not a reasonable belief requirement under that clause?
Can employer suits or counterclaims against employees be deemed to be retaliatory even though the claims are not frivolous? Isn’t this a First Amendment issue regarding the right of access to the court system?
Does this case alter the well-documented unwillingness of actual victims to complain of sexual harassment, because the outcomes are worse in every way than if they just absorb the abuse in silence?
Invest just 90 minutes at your home or office to learn the details and ramifications of Crawford decision and its effect on retaliation claims in employment law from this team of experts. This audio program comes to you live on Thursday, February 26, 2009, 1:00-2:30 pm EST, via your phone or your computer. The format will allow for questions to be put to the panel during the program via email. Materials corresponding to the course may be downloaded or viewed online.
Planning Chairs
Robert B. Fitzpatrick, Esquire, Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC, Washington, D.C.
Frank C. Morris, Jr., Esquire, Epstein Becker & Green, PC, Washington, D.C.
Faculty
Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esquire, EEOC Office of General Counsl Appellate Services, Washington, D.C.
Thomas C. Goldstein, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C.
Professor Eric Schnapper, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA
For group tuition discounts, click on the Registration link at top and register online at the discounted rates, or go to the Group Webcast Page and email Ruth Johnson at rjohnson@ali-aba.org for assistance.
Program Schedule
1:00 pm Crawford: The Supreme Court Redraws Retaliation Law
Panel discussion
2:15 pm Audience Questions--Panel discussion
2:30 pm Adjournment
Total 60-minute hours of instruction: 1.5; Total 50-minute hours of instruction: 1.8
Suggested Prerequisite: Experience in employment law and litigation generally; familiarity with retaliation protection and related issues in employment law.
Educational Objective: To learn about the recently-issued U.S. Supreme Court case Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (No. 06–1595, January 26, 2009) and its effect on retaliation issues in employment law.
Level of Instruction: Intermediate
Times
Eastern: 1:00-2:30 pm
Central: 12:00 noon-1:30 pm
Mountain: 11:00 am-12:30 pm
Pacific: 10:00-11:30 am
Alaska: 9:00-10:30 am
Hawaii: 8:00-9:30 am
