The “manager rule” has been applied by courts in several circuits in the context of retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), to require that an employee “step outside of his or her role of representing the company” in order to engage in protected activity.  In DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 13-2278), the Fourth Circuit held that, whatever place it may have in FLSA jurisprudence, the “manager rule” does not apply to Title VII.  The court concluded that nothing in the language of Title VII indicates that anti-retaliation protections accorded to an employee turns on the employee’s job description, or that Congress intended to excise a large category of workers from Title VII’s statutory protections.  The court found it important that there were differences in the language of Title VII and the FLSA, noting that the conduct protected by the FLSA is far more constricted than the broad range of conduct protected by Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.  The court held that the language of both Title VII and the EEOC Compliance Manual make clear that the only qualification that is placed upon an employee’s invocation of protection from retaliation is that the manner of his or her opposition must be reasonable.  In rejecting the “manager rule” in the context of Title VII retaliation claims, the court joined the Sixth Circuit, the only other Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue in a precedential opinion.