of the investigation of Gilooly’s complaint filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR), a designee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Appellant’s App. 93). Gilooly's conduct in the grievance hearing, therefore, was governed only by the opposition clause. See Vasconcelos, 907 F.2d at 113. 4 .The second and third grounds listed by the DHSS in its termination letter involved statements made by Gilooly in his MCHR complaint and to an investigator from the DHSS's Office of Civil Rights, who was assigned to conduct an investigation in light of Gilooly's complaint to the MCHR. (Appellant's App. at 93-94, 180). These statements likely should be analyzed under the participation clause. See Clover v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1352-53 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 348 F.3d 537, 543
holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that a valid defense to a subsequent lawsuit does not prevent an eeoc investigation holding investigation was not deficient in part because counsel hired an experienced death penalty investigator who conducted a thorough investigation into defendants history holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc