Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10693813/rolfs-v-home-depot/ ↗

Full Text

1,952 chars

36
The Supreme Court recently addressed the scope of the
opposition clause in Crawford. The Court held that
the term “oppose,” left undefined by the statute,
carries its ordinary meaning, which includes “‘to
resist or antagonize . . . ; to contend against; to
confront; resist; withstand,’” or “‘to be hostile or
adverse t o , as in opinion.’” Id. at [276] (quoting
Webster’s New International Dictionary 1710 (2d ed.
1958) and Random House Dictionary of English Language
1359 (2d ed. 1987)). Applying this standard, the
Court held that a plaintiff who did not initiate a
complaint about sexual harassment nevertheless engaged
in protected conduct under the opposition clause. Id.
at [273]. In response to questions posed to her
during an internal investigation, the plaintiff
described various instances of sexually harassing
behavior by another employee. The Court held that
plaintiff’s responses to employer questioning could
reasonably be seen as resistant or antagonistic to the
sexually harassing treatment, “if for no other reason
than the point . . . explained by an EEOC guideline:
‘When an employee communicates to her employer a
belief that the employer has engaged in . . . a form
of employment discrimination, that communication’
virtually always ‘constitutes the employee’s
opposition to the activity.’” Id. at [276] (quoting 2
EEOC Compliance Manual §§ 8-II-B(1),(2), p . 614:0003
(Mar. 2003)). The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s
view that the opposition clause required an employee
to engage in “active, consistent ‘opposing’
activities” and to instigate or initiate a complaint.
Id. at [277]. Collazo, 617 F.3d at 46-47. Nothing in Crawford abrogated Morgan’s holding that to qualify as protected activity, an employee’s statement to his employer must provide adequate

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text