OR · 42usc2000e-2:retaliation.protected-activity
Protected opposition or participation under § 2000e-3(a); general labor or workplace grievances unrelated to a Title VII protected trait do not qualify as protected activity.
Exact element source
unlawful employment practiceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [78:106] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| opposition provisional; 0 observed cases | Internal or external opposition to unlawful Title VII discrimination | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot |
| participation provisional; 0 observed cases | Filing an EEOC charge or participating in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Protected opposition or participation activity under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a); theory: opposition clause, based on the 1978-79 contract dispute and union drive; subject: theory=opposition clause, based on the 1978-79 contract dispute and union drive The union activity itself is found as fact (hence [supports]: it is the activity relied on); it fails because, as a matter of law, labor activity not directed at racial practices is not Title VII opposition. | protected-activity/union-organizing-not-directed-at-discrimination | 9. During this period, certain of the faculty attempted to unionize the faculty members. Turner was active in the attempt, which failed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [3574:3710] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.While it is true that after the labor dispute BSC’s attitude toward plaintiffs began to change, the labor activity was not in response to racial policies. Thus, it was not the type of protected activity contemplated within a Title VII or § 1981 retaliation claim, and Grant is inapposite.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [27953:28241] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In their brief plaintiffs claim that to prove retaliatory discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 they must show as one element a “protected opposition to employment practices or participation in charges of discrimination known by defendant.”
Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In their brief plaintiffs claim that to prove retaliatory discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 they must show as one element a “protected opposition to employment practices or participation in charges of discrimination known by defendant.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [27237:27481] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Protected opposition or participation under § 2000e-3(a); general labor or workplace grievances unrelated to a Title VII protected trait do not qualify as protected activity.
interpretation
the labor activity was not in response to racial policies. Thus, it was not the type of protected activity contemplated within a Title VII or § 1981 retaliation claim, and Grant is inapposite.
Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
the labor activity was not in response to racial policies. Thus, it was not the type of protected activity contemplated within a Title VII or § 1981 retaliation claim, and Grant is inapposite.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [28049:28241] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Protected opposition or participation under § 2000e-3(a); general labor or workplace grievances unrelated to a Title VII protected trait do not qualify as protected activity.