In Swanson v. Chapman, No. CV 24-1622, 2025 WL 3153389 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2025), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must tender evidence that: (1) she engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) the employer took an adverse employment action against her; and (3) there was a causal connection between her participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
Defendants remarkably posit, without support, that Plaintiff’s “pushing [Dr. Chapman] to move faster with the investigation…is not opposing discrimination in the workplace but instead voicing a personal opinion” about Defendants’ handling of the complaints. Defendants’ later assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, the alleged sexual harassment is the “issue”, and not the “backdrop”, in this litigation, and Plaintiff’s complaints regarding Powe’s sexual harassment of other of Defendants’ female employees and her admonitions/insistence it be promptly addressed were a quintessential example of an employee opposing an unlawful employment practice.
Even a cursory review of relevant precedent from the Supreme Court, the Third Circuit, and other sources makes clear that Defendants’ motion should be denied. The term “oppose” under Title VII carries its ordinary meaning of “to resist or antagonize; to contend against; to confront.” Title VII’s protection is not limited to those opposing their own mistreatment or that of their own protected class. Protected opposition includes actions such as: complaining or threatening to complain about alleged discrimination against oneself or others. Here, as clearly detailed in Plaintiff’s responsive filings, the record evidences material fact questions – supported in the deposition testimony of Plaintiff, Dr. Chapman, and other affected employees – regarding Plaintiff’s confrontations with Dr. Chapman, opposition to Powe’s sexual harassment of other of Defendants’ female employees and objections to Defendants’ delayed resolution.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity because she never alleges she was a victim, or a witness, or an invited participant in the investigation. That contention is meritless; Defendants cite no authority to the contrary.
(Cleaned up.)
The court rejected defendants’ reliance on case law stating that “an employee is protected from retaliation when the employer perceives [him/her] to have engaged in protected activity”, noting that the case cited by defendant “does not stand, as Defendants would have it, for the proposition that Title VII’s protection extends only to victims and witnesses.”