The considerations controlling the interpretation of the opposition clause are not entirely the same as those applying to the participation clause. The purpose of the latter is to protect the employee who utilizes the tools provided by Congress to protect his rights. The district court appears to have examined Hashimoto's retaliation claim under the opposition clause only. As such, it was protected activity. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in determining that Hashimoto failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Information here is correct at the time it is posted.
Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first. All rights reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.