CRAWFORD V. METRO TECHNOLOGIES

The plaintiff, Nancy Crawford, was a long-time employee of Metro Technologies ("Metro"), a Fortune 500 biotechnology company with over 500 employees. Crawford worked in the Investor Relations Department, where she assisted in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.The department of human resources began an investigation into Marcus Hughes, the newly-hired employee relations director for Metro. Another female employee, Cathy Simpson, had expressed concern about being sexually harassed by Hughes. Crawford and Simpson were distant cousins and worked closely together on the same floor as Hughes.Victoria Frazier, the assistant director for Metro's human resources department was assigned to investigate the allegations. Frazier began by calling employees who had worked in close proximity to Hughes and Simpson, including Crawford. Crawford described to Frazier several incidents of sexual harassment which Simpson had related to her.

According to what Simpson told Crawford, Hughes had requested on "numerous" occasions to see her breasts. Hughes also, in response to the question "What's up?" grabbed his crotch and replied "You know what's up." On several occasions, Crawford continued, Simpson told her that Hughes had pressed his crotch against the window of Simpson's office. On one occasion, when Simpson asked Hughes what she could do for him, he grabbed her head and pulled it towards his crotch. Crawford had not witnessed any of these instances, and expressed reluctance to report the incidences earlier because she felt it was Simpson's problem; she had not seen any of the incidents; and further because Hughes headed the human resources department where charges are reported and Hughes was tasked with investigating claims of sexual harassment. Hughes was also a good friend of the Metro's new Chief Financial Officer (who was the head of her department) and Crawford did not want to endanger her job.

Frazier also asked Crawford if she had ever witnessed any other incidents by anyone within the Company which she would characterize as "illegal".Crawford stated that she couldn't be sure, as she wasn't a lawyer, but she felt like there had been some "errors and irregularities" in various SEC filings she had assisted with. No further investigation was undertaken by Frazier, or anyone else, relative to this report from Crawford.

Hughes denied all the allegations and there were no other witnesses to directly corroborate Simpson's allegations.Frazier's report concluded that Hughes may have acted inappropriately, but he was not discharged.Rather, he was given warning to avoid any inappropriate activity and that any further incidents could result in more severe discipline, up to and including termination.Simpson found other employment during the course of the investigation and resigned.

Crawford had been employed by Metro for over 30 years. At the time of the investigation, Crawford was under a final written warning for poor job performance based upon erroneous entries in various government filings. Crawford allegedly committed another error in paperwork two months after the conclusion of the investigation and was terminated.Crawford's termination paperwork indicates she was terminated for "falsification of company documents."It is undisputed that Crawford did in fact make the errors alleged.

Following her termination, Crawford sued her former employer under Title VII, alleging that her termination was in retaliation for the information she provided regarding Hughes' conduct. Metro's position is that Crawford is not protected by Title VII on two grounds. First, her statements to Frazier did not constitute "opposition" to illegal conduct, as Crawford did not initiate the investigation. Second, Metro asserts that Crawford was not protected against retaliation because the investigation was an employer's internal investigation and a charge had not been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the state human rights agency. Crawford only filed with the EEOC after she had been terminated, as required by Title VII.

Alternatively, Crawford alleges that even if Metro is correct on her claim of direct retaliation, she was subjected to "indirect" retaliation. Essentially, she alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for Simpson's claim of harassment, and that her termination was intended to "chill" claims by family members. Metro contends such a theory has no legal merit.

At the time of her termination, Crawford was 58 years old. She had expected to work until the age of 67 (for full social security retirement). She received an associate's degree from a community college 25 years ago. Her annual income was $60,000.00, with health insurance and 401k. The mediation is taking place one year after her termination.Crawford is divorced with two grown children.She owns her own home and has been able to maintain her mortgage by drawing out of her retirement. To date, she has withdrawn $100,000 in principal for mortgage and living expenses, which has resulted in taxes and penalties of an additional $50,000.00.The mortgage balance on her home is $250,000.00. She has made diligent efforts to obtain alternative employment, but has been unsuccessful. She has applied for several positions for which she knows she is qualified, but the interest of the prospective employer "cools" when she lists the basis of her termination from Metro.Additionally, as Crawford has some medical issues, she opted to pay for insurance continuation, which costs her $1,000.00 per month.No depositions have been taken, and it is anticipated that the case will not go to trial for three years. It is anticipated that attorney's fees for each side will approximate $100,000.00.

Compose a memo, addressing the following:

1.Review the facts of the case and discuss the legal strengths and weaknesses.

2.Determine what facts are missing which might bear upon the legal strengths or weaknesses, or your negotiation/mediation strategy. (If there are questions you have relating to the facts of the case, you are not to "make them up").

3.Calculate the best and worst-case scenarios under Title VII, and provide justification. Formulate a negotiation strategy with a realistic bargaining range.