The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently revived a Title VII retaliation claim brought by a physician who alleged that the University of Pittsburgh and its affiliates retaliated against him after he published an article criticizing race-conscious selection practices in medical training programs.
The court held that a jury could find that the physician engaged in protected activity by opposing what he reasonably believed were unlawful race-based preferences, even though his article did not specifically accuse his employers of violating Title VII. The court also found sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the employer’s subsequent actions were retaliatory.
The Third Circuit took an expansive view of protected opposition under Title VII, concluding that even without a formal workplace complaint, it protects public critiques of practices reasonably believed to be discriminatory. Opposition activity need not use legal terminology or expressly accuse an employer of violating Title VII if the context suggests concerns about unlawful employment practices, the court emphasized.
Click here to read more from the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC), our affiliated nonprofit membership association.