Opposition Must Be Reasonable

The manner in which an individual protests perceived employment discrimination must be reasonable in order for the anti- retaliation provisions to apply. In applying a ''reasonableness'' standard, courts and the Commission balance the right of individuals to oppose employment discrimination and the public's interest in enforcement of the EEO laws against an employer's need for a stable and productive work environment. Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices. On the other hand, courts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement. Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge. Opposition to perceived discrimination does not serve as license for the employee to neglect job duties.