Employees who believe they were fired for serving as witnessesin internal sexual harassment investigations have legal protectionand can sue employers for retaliation, the Supreme Court ruled latelast month.

The decision resolved a conflict between different judicialcircuits.

The case was sparked by a Nashville, Tenn. school district'sinvestigation of conduct by its employee relations director, GeneHughes. Vicky Crawford, the district payroll supervisor, who hadnot lodged the complaint against Mr. Hughes, was fired aftertestifying he had sexually harassed her.

The decision should not change the advice given employers abouthow to conduct sexual harassment investigations, according toVictoria Zellers, a labor and employment lawyer at Cozen O'Connorin Philadelphia.

"I believe the decision takes away a technical legal defensefrom an employer," Ms. Zellers said, "but in ongoing litigation, itdoesn't change the advice I would give employers faced with sexualharassment investigations."

She added that employment lawyers have always instructed theirclients not to retaliate against people who had reported sexualharassment activity, "whether they were the initial complainant ornot," she said.

"In my opinion, on a practical basis, the guidance to employerswould not be any different than before this decision."

That advice, she said, "is to conduct thorough investigationsand to make sure that no one retaliates against anyone who hasreported sexual harassment or discriminatory behavior."

The case decided by the Supreme Court is titled Crawford v.Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn.,No. 06-1595.

Ms. Crawford, who worked for her school system for 30 years,answered questions asked by those conducting the investigationprompted by others who did complain.

Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter noted that Ms.Crawford had told about inappropriate sexual conduct by Mr.Hughes--conduct described as "louche goings-on," including "grossclowning" and "sexually obnoxious" behavior by him.

Mr. Hughes received an oral reprimand for his behavior, but Ms.Crawford and two other women who had accused him of inappropriatebehavior were fired.

She filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,claiming that the school district was retaliating for her report ofHughes' behavior. Such retaliation violates the section of TitleVII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against anyemployee who has opposed an unlawful employment practice or "hasmade a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any mannerin an investigation, proceeding, or hearing."

A district court granted the school district summary judgment,and a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed thedismissal.

The courts held that the opposition clause in the provision shesued under demanded "active, consistent" opposing activities,whereas Ms. Crawford had not initiated any complaint prior to theinvestigation.

The lower courts also found that the participation clause didnot cover the school system's internal investigation because it wasnot conducted pursuant to a Title VII charge pending with the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission.

The high court decision held that the anti-retaliationprovision's protection extends to an employee who speaks out aboutdiscrimination not on her own initiative but in answering questionsduring an employer's internal investigation of the behavior.

"Nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting anemployee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but notone who reports the same discrimination in the same words whenasked a question," Justice Souter wrote.

Justice Samuel Alioto wrote a concurring opinion in whichJustice Clarence Thomas joined.

Ms. Zellers said she was not surprised at the decision.

"There was already a split between circuits on the issue, andthe woman who was involved in the case had reported harassingconduct toward her," Ms. Zellers said.

Ms. Crawford's case now goes back to the lower court for atrial.