# Lavaughn Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 3, 1989 · 879 F.2d 1304

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479281

## Case

- **Full name:** LaVaughn BOOKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 3, 1989
- **Citations:** 879 F.2d 1304; 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,135; 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 365; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9494; 1989 WL 71742
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nelson
- **Judges:** Milburn, Nelson, Peck
- **Cited by:** 593 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479281

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that employee’s allegation that manager is a racist is not protected activity under the ADEA because “the allegation is not that Brown & Williamson is engaging in unlawful employment practice, but that one of its employees has a racial intolerance” and that charge of “…
- holding that “the instigation of proceedings leading to the filing of a complaint or a charge ... is a prerequisite to protection under the participation clause” and that “any activity by the employee prior to the instigation of statutory proceedings is to be considered pursua…
- holding “a vague charge of discrimination in an internal letter or memorandum is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice” after noting that sending a letter to one’s employer was not filing a formal complaint of discrimination pursuant to statu…
- concluding that statute should be read literally and stating that activity of employee before instigation of statutory proceedings comes under opposition clause, because the filing of a charge or complaint with the EEOC is a prerequisite to protection under participation clause
- holding that an allegation that the plaintiff’s supervisor may be a racist does not constitute protected activity as “the allegation is not that [the employer] is engaging in unlawful employment practice, but that one of its employees has a racial intolerance

## Opinion text

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the court and in all of the opinion except Part II C. My initial impression is that Mr. Booker may have “opposed” what he construed as conduct that would have constituted an Elliott-Larsen violation, but whether he did or not, I would affirm the judgment of the court for the reasons set forth in the balance of Judge Milburn’s very thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479281. Public record. Not legal advice.