1 / 8

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Vicky Crawford had worked for Metro for thirty years before being fired after she was questioned as a witness in an internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint. . The Statement.

branxton
Download Presentation

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee • Vicky Crawford had worked for Metro for thirty years before being fired after she was questioned as a witness in an internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint.

  2. The Statement • Dr. Gene Hughes (The Director of Metro School District) was accused of inappropriate behaviors by Crawford and other employees. • Crawford told the investigator of Metro that Hughes had sexually harassed her by grabbing his crotch, asking to see her breasts, and pulling her head to his crotch.

  3. The Result • After investigation was complete Hughes was not disciplined • The three employees who made statements on Hughes were investigated on other grounds and all discharged. • Crawford was fired after being accused of embezzlement and drug use charges.

  4. Crawford filed an EEOC charge and a lawsuit after receiving her notice of right to sue. • Crawford lost in federal district court and again at the Court of Appeals. • Because Crawford didn’t file the original harassment complaint, the courts found that she hadn’t opposed sexual harassment. • Also, Crawford’s statements during the internal investigation didn’t count as “participation” because no EEOC charge or lawsuit had been filed at the time.

  5. Title VII states that unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of its employees because the employee has made a chare, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in investigation, proceeding, or hearing.

  6. Crawford didn’t claim to investigate or initiate any complaint prior to her participation in the investigation, and didn’t take any further actions following the investigation and prior to her firing. No EEOC charge had been filed at the time of the investigation or prior to her firing; the investigation was internal and was prompted by and informal internal statement.

  7. Stakeholders & Interests • Vicky Crawford: wanted Dr. Gene Hughes to be fired, sue her job after firing her. • Dr. Gene Hughes: doesn’t want to be accused of sexual harassment or fired. • Metro: does not want to be sued and accused of discrimination.

  8. Created by Xavier Dean

More Related