Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ohio Edison Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Title VII recognizes a cause of action by an employee against employer for retaliation based upon conduct protected by Title VII by a relative of the employee
• holding that Title VII’s invoked by any one other than the defendant. 710 F.2d 1194, protections against retaliation extended to situations where an 1198 (6th Cir. 1983
• explaining that Title VII’s language “should be broadly construed to include a claim in which an employee, or his representative, has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” (emphasis in original)
• voicing concern that “any time that an adverse employment action is taken by an employer against an employee at the same time a second employee is engaging in protected activity, the first employee could allege retaliation”
• collecting cases which hold former employees have protection under several anti-retaliation provisions
• a protected activity may include circumstances where “an employee, or his representative, has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment: practice” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).