Was it the intent of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make it more difficult for managers and supervisors, than for rank-and-file employees, to prove protected activity?

If so, has the statute's original intent survived recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent expanding Title VII's protections against unlawful employer retaliation?

According to a new decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the answer to both questions appears to be yes.

In Dunn v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, the court found that the "manager rule" provided grounds to dismiss the claim of an assistant manager in a Miami Wal-Mart store that she was fired for taking her subordinates' race and national origin discrimination complaints about her boss--the store's manager--to the company's labor relations department.

Under the "manager rule," the court said, a member of management does not engage in Title VII-protected activity simply by reporting employee bias complaints when the manager is obligated by company policy to do so.

The Wal-Mart assistant manager, it decided, was so obligated, and thus did not "step outside" of her management duties sufficiently to defeat application of the rule.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the "manager rule" was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court's January 2009 decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, which adopted a broad view of "opposition" conduct under Title VII.

The Southern District of Florida relied on a subsequent, unpublished opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Supreme Court denied review of the Eleventh Circuit case, which involved facts--a supervisor fired after urging management to refer to the police a report that an employee was raped--that made application of the rule seemingly harsher than in the Southern District of Florida decision.

Other recent EEO developments include:

• President Obama announced his fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, under which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would receive approximately $373 million.

• The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee approved the nomination of Jenny R. Yang as a member of EEOC, clearing the way for a full Senate vote.

• A California jury awarded two women who claimed Union Bank fired them because of their age a total of almost $2.6 million in damages.