An employee allegedly fired because she complained about discrimination against two foreign workers, who are not protected by federal discrimination law, is still entitled to pursue her retaliation charge, said a federal appeals court Wednesday, in reinstating her case.

Viktorya Reznik, who was a project management director for Sandy, Utah-based inContact, Inc., which provides cloud-based services, had reported to her immediate supervisor as well as the human resources department that two employees who worked in the company’s Manilla, Philippines, office were being subjected by a manager to racial slurs, including calling them “monkeys” and “not human,” according to the divided ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in Viktorya Reznik v. inContact, Inc.

A few weeks later, Ms. Reznik was terminated, being told only that she was “not a good culture fit” and “not a good fit.”

Ms. Reznik filed suit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, charging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court dismissed the case, ruling she had failed to state a claim because she had not shown an objectively reasonable belief that she opposed conduct unlawful under Title VII.

“The one issue before us is whether Ms. Reznik’s belief was objectively reasonable,” the majority opinion said. It held this was the case even though Title VII’s protection does not extend to foreign citizens.

“A reasonable employee could think” that the manager’s conduct toward the employees “constituted a racial and/or national origin discrimination that violates Title VII,” it said.

“A reasonable employee likely knows that discrimination based on race and/or national origin is unlawful, but is likely unfamiliar with Title VII’s statutory exceptions.

“Such an employee should not be charged with such specialized legal knowledge,” it said, in reversing the lower court’s ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The dissenting opinion said the objective reasonableness of an employee’s belief must be measured “against existing substantive law.”

Ms. Reznik’s attorney, Ogden, Utah-based Philip C. Patterson, said in a statement, “I’m thrilled for my client. The decision otherwise speaks for itself. Other than the legal standards which the court applied, the specific facts of the case provide limited precedent value.” 

The company’s attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.