J. DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13962

Background

DeMasters was an EAP consultant at Carilion from 2006; he assisted a coworker (“Doe”) who reported severe sexual harassment by a supervisor and helped initiate an internal complaint and HR investigation.
DeMasters relayed Doe’s complaint to HR, obtained a release to communicate on Doe’s behalf, and repeatedly urged HR to address ensuing hostility toward Doe.
After the harasser was initially terminated and then briefly allowed back to collect belongings, Doe faced escalating hostility; DeMasters criticized Carilion’s handling and offered EAP assistance to HR.
Two years later, after Doe filed an EEOC charge and settled, Carilion managers questioned DeMasters, accused him of not being “pro-employer,” and fired him two days later, citing actions contrary to Carilion’s interests.
DeMasters sued under Title VII’s Opposition Clause for retaliation; the district court dismissed, finding (1) his acts, viewed separately, were not protected oppositional conduct and (2) the “manager rule” barred protection because his duties included counseling and reporting.
The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding (a) oppositional conduct must be judged as a course of conduct, not isolated acts, and (b) the “manager rule” does not apply to Title VII retaliation claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DeMasters engaged in protected opposition under Title VII	DeMasters argued his repeated advocacy for Doe and communications to HR conveyed his belief Carilion engaged in unlawful discrimination and therefore constituted protected opposition when viewed as a course of conduct	Carilion argued his actions were merely relaying Doe’s complaints and not purposive oppositional conduct; individual acts were not protected	Court held that opposition must be assessed holistically; DeMasters’ course of conduct plausibly communicated opposition to unlawful practices and is protected
Whether the “manager rule” bars protection for employees whose job duties include reporting or counseling	DeMasters (and EEOC) argued the manager-rule should not apply to Title VII because the statute protects a broad range of opposition regardless of job description	Carilion argued that because DeMasters’ duties included counseling and reporting, allowing protection would convert routine job duties into protected activity and create a "litigation minefield"	Court held the manager rule has no place in Title VII; job duties do not categorically strip an employee of anti-retaliation protection
Whether there is causation between protected activity and termination	DeMasters argued the timing and employer statements show termination was because he opposed discrimination	Carilion contended its proffered reasons were legitimate and unrelated to protected activity	Court found sufficient factual allegations: employer statements at meeting and termination letter tied firing to DeMasters’ conduct, supporting a causal inference

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (defines “oppose” broadly and holds employee communications to employer about discrimination typically constitute opposition)
Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (instructs that opposition may be to practices reasonably believed unlawful and may protect opposition to a hostile work environment in progress)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision has broad scope to prevent employer interference with enforcement)
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (recognizes third-party retaliation and stresses objective standard to avoid subjective uncertainties)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (sexual harassment recognized as unlawful under Title VII)
Johnson v. University of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2000) (rejects excluding employees from Title VII retaliation protection because their duties required advocacy)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer vicarious liability and affirmative defenses for harassment)
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (same as Faragher; employer affirmative defense for supervisory harassment)