Title VII, a “precise, complex, and exhaustive” statute, does not prohibit employment practices that are not specifically prohibited by the act
In the words of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Cooper, “believing that the proposed changes materially conflicted with federal regulations because they would ‘subject the EEO complaint response process to political pressure,’ increasing the likelihood that workplace discrimination would go unredressed,” initiated a series of communications with her supervisors bring her concerns to their attention. Cooper’s position proved persuasive and GOER’s plan was altered in consideration of her views.
Subsequently Cooper was terminated from her position. Alleging that her termination was “in retaliation for having lobbied against GOER’s proposal,” Cooper sued. The federal district court dismissed her petition and the Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
* As an example, the Circuit Court of Appeals noted, objecting to the employer’s failure to adhere to its own affirmative action program is not protected activity because such a failure is not an “unlawful employment practice” within the meaning of Title VII.