Why Title VII's Participation Clause Needs to Be Broadly Interpreted to Protect Those Involved in Internal Investigations

Authors

May M. Mansour

Document Type

Note

Abstract

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that this narrow interpretation of the statute is contrary to the intention and aim of Title VII and, in turn, should be interpreted more broadly. Part I of this Note gives a brief explanation of the meaning and purpose of Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Part II focuses on some of the cases that have limited the application of the participation clause to employees who are involved in formal EEOC proceedings. In particular, it focuses on the most recent Second Circuit case, Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc., to examine the dangers presented by such a limited interpretation. Part III of this Note discusses several reasons why such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. Finally, the Note concludes in Part IV by arguing that courts should interpret the participation clause more broadly, urging them to take into consideration cases which have interpreted Title VII's anti-retaliation provision broadly and to give deference to the EEOC, which also interprets the provision broadly.