Held: The antiretaliation provision's protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer's internal investigation. Because "oppose" is undefined by statute, it carries its ordinary dictionary meaning of resisting or contending against. Crawford's statement is thus covered by the opposition clause, as an ostensibly disapproving account of Hughes's sexually obnoxious behavior toward her. "Oppose" goes beyond "active, consistent" behavior in ordinary discourse, and may be used to speak of someone who has taken no action at all to advance a position beyond disclosing it. Thus, a person can "oppose" by responding to someone else's questions just as surely as by provoking the discussion. 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 asked a question. Metro unconvincingly argues for the Sixth Circuit's active, consistent opposition rule, claiming that employers will be less likely to raise questions about possible discrimination if a retaliation charge is easy to raise when things go badly for an employee who responded to enquiries. Employers, however, have a strong inducement to ferret out and put a stop to discriminatory activity in their operations because Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 , and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 , hold "[a]n employer ... subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with ... authority over the employee." The Circuit's rule could undermine the Ellerth-Faragher scheme, along with the statute's " 'primary objective' " of "avoid[ing] harm" to employees, Faragher, supra, at 806, for if an employee reporting discrimination in answer to an employer's questions could be penalized with no remedy, prudent employees would have a good reason to keep quiet about Title VII offenses. Because Crawford's conduct is covered by the opposition clause, this Court does not reach her argument that the Sixth Circuit also misread the participation clause. Metro's other defenses to the retaliation claim were never reached by the District Court, and thus remain open on remand. Pp. 3-8. 

211 Fed. Appx. 373, reversed and remanded.

    Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined.

Case below:  Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (6th Cir 11/14/2006) (unpublished) 
Official docket sheet 
Oral argument:  October 6, 2008.  [The Solicitor General participates in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of Petitioner.]  Transcript 
Certiorari granted January 18, 2008  

Certiorari Documents: 

• Petition for certiorari 
• Brief in opposition 
• Amicus brief of the National Employment Lawyers Association (in support of the petition)
• Amicus brief of the Tennessee Education Association, et al. (in support of the petition)
• Amicus brief of the United States (in support of the petition)

Briefs on the merits: 

• Brief for Petitioner Vicky S. Crawford 
• Brief for Respondent the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Vicky S. Crawford
• Brief for the Tennessee Education Association and the Metropolitan Nashville Education Association in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the National Employment Lawyers Association, the American Association of University Professors, the National Employment Law Project, and Public Justice, P.C. in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for Ohio and 19 Other States and Commonwealths in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for National Women's Law Center, et al., in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in Support of Respondent 
• Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center in Support of Respondent 
• Brief for National School Board Association in Support of Respondent 

Counsel:

• For Petitioner Vicky S. Crawford: Ann Buntin Steiner; Steiner & Steiner; 214 Second Avenue, N., Suite 203; Nashville, TN  37201-1644; (615)-244-5063. 
• For Respondent Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee: Francis H. Young; Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County; P.O. Box 196300; Nashville, TN  37219; (615) 862-6341.