Whitfield, who was black, worked for Ohio Edison. Edison fired him, but then later offered to rehire him. At about that time, another employee, representing Whitfield, argued that Edison’s original termination of Whitfield had been race discrimination. Edison rescinded its offer to rehire Whitfield. Whitfield sued Edison, claiming that the rescission of the offer to rehire was in retaliation for the other employee’s opposition to discrimination. Edison defended by saying that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not protect in such cases. Title VII prohibits, among other things, an employer from retaliating against an employee who has opposed illegal discrimination. But it does not explicitly prohibit an employer from retaliating against one employee based on another employee’s opposition to discrimination. Edison argued that the statute did not protect Whitfield. Outcome?
22 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 1989 U.S. LEXIS XXXXXXXXXX).
Background for Questions 7 through 9. The following three questions begin with a deadly explosion. In 1988, terrorists bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all passengers on board. Congress sought to remedy security shortcomings by passing the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, which, among other things, ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to prescribe minimum training requirements and minimum staffing levels for airport security. The FAA promulgated rules according to the informal rulemaking process. However, the FAA refused to disclose certain rules concerning training at specific airports. Public Citizen, Inc. v. FAA. 23