SCOTUS Backs Worker But Why Did It Have To?

In yet another surprisingly sane decision in favor of workers, the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the Sixth District Appeals Court that removed retaliation protection from a worker who co-operated with an official internal investigation.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that a federal anti-discrimination law protects employees from retaliation when they cooperate with internal investigations of harassment.

The court sided with Vicky S. Crawford, who said she was fired from her longtime job in charge of payroll for the Nashville school system after she answered questions in an ongoing investigation into what the court termed the "louche goings-on" involving a supervisor.

Crawford said the boss, Metro School District employee relations director Gene Hughes, had put his crotch against her office window and once pulled her head toward his groin.

The school district's investigation did not recommend disciplinary actions against Hughes, but Crawford and two others who testified against him were later fired over unrelated matters.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? No action taken against the harrasser but witnesses who aided the investigation were fired and the 6th District saw no problem with that? David Souter found himself lecturing the 6th District as if he was explaining to aborigines that 2+2 doesn't, never has and never will = 5.

"Nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question," Justice David H. Souter wrote.

Duh. One wonders why this ever got to the Supreme Court in the first place. Even for a non-lawyer, this decision is a no-brainer. There aren't any real issues here except one: an overly strict and absurdly literal reading of the statute. Now who do we know thinks like that? Hard Right conservatives, of course - "strict constructionists", which always seems to mean interpreting the Constitution as if nothing had changed since 1776 and every word was to be taken literally and never mind intent or nuance. You'd assume the 6th must be full of Bush appointees but oddly you'd be wrong.

The case was heard by 3 judges: Chief Justice Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee, and two Clinton appointees, Martha Daughtrey and Richard Mills. Yet here's the key summation (pdf. file), presumably written by Boggs:

[W]e find that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Metro is entitled to judgment as a matter of law...

IOW, since the law doesn't say specifically that the statute applies to those who give evidence in an investigation, therefore it doesn't.

This isn't just counter-intuitive, it's plain silly, an apparent attempt to give the city of Nashville an out for its shoddy treatment of a teacher. Why that would be important to Boggs is obvious but the other two? Daughtery has a reputation as a liberal and Mills was recommended by no less a lib icon than Carol Mosely Brown. One is stumped trying to figure out why they were suddenly afflicted with a serious case of conservativitis. Something in the Tennessee water perhaps?

Comments

[vwclown]

My lawnmower has a warning on it to not pick it up while it's running... And I have never been tempted since I read that.

[Mark Gisleson]

My take would be that nobody and I mean NO BODY covers up for corrupt government officials like Democrats. Sure Republicans cover up for the thieves they embed into government service, but only the Democrats routinely protect genuine bureaucrats from legal consequences.

If this had been the City of Chicago, I suspect you would have seen things differently. That and as I recall it, Big Dog got mau maued half to death over his judiciary appointments, and put some real dogs on the bench.

[mick arran]

A lawyer sent me this:

First, this case involved statutory construction, not constitutional interpretation. Conservative judges tend to construe statutes strictly, just as they do the constitution, but still, the exercise is not quite the same, and the two types of cases should not be conflated.

Second, the Sixth District opinion was an unpublished per curiam opinion. That means it was most likely written by a staff attorney rather than by any of the justices whose names appear on it. Which doesn't mean to say that they didn't approve the result. But, to be fair, if you read the whole thing, they were going on the notion that protecting employees who cooperate in internal investigations that are held before anyone has filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC or the like not only is not required by the language of Title VII, but also would discourage employers from conducting such investigations of their own accord. The US Supreme Court said "piffle" to that, and I certainly agree. But the Sixth Circuit didn't see - or didn't admit - that what it was doing was hurting workers, not helping them.

So it's not such a no-brainer as all that. Still, SCOTUS clearly got it right. They do, every once in a while.

I don't find this very convincing proof that the 2 Dems were solid thinkers. I suspect, Mark, that you've nailed this one except I hate to think Carol would recommend a bonehead.