Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Laughlin v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, 149 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. July 2, 1998)

Keywords: Title VII (retaliation, opposition clause)

Introduction: Karen Laughlin sued the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) under Title VII alleging that she had been terminated for engaging in protected activity. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of the MWAA. The Fourth Circuit affirms.

Facts: Laughlin secretly removed documents from her boss's desk, copied the documents, replaced the originals and sent the copies to a former employee who had filed a formal complaint with the MWAA EEO officer. When this was discovered during a lawsuit filed by the employee, Laughlin was terminated.

Law:

1. To prevail on a Title VII claim of retaliatory termination, a plaintiff must first prove that she engaged in protected activity.
2. Protected activity under Title VII is divided into two categories, opposition and participation.
3. Activities that constitute participation are outlined in the statute: (1) making a charge; (2) testifying; (3) assisting; or (4) participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII.
4. Laughlin argues that she was participating in an investigation. The Fourth Circuit rejects this argument because there was no ongoing investigation at the time the documents were copied, and the former employee had not requested Laughlin's assistance. Therefore, Laughlin was not engaged in "participation" activity.
5. Next, to determine whether Laughlin has engaged in legitimate "opposition" activity, the Court balances the purpose of the Act to protect persons engaging reasonably in activities opposing discrimination, against Congress' equally manifest desire not to tie hands of employers in the objective selection and control of personnel.
6. The Fourth Circuit easily concludes that the employer's interest in maintaining security and confidentiality of sensitive personnel documents outweighs Laughlin's interest in providing those documents to the former employee.
7. Click here to see actual case.