Posted by: Jennifer Milligan
July 07, 2006

Working as a forklift operator, Sheila White was the only woman in the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company’s maintenance department in the Memphis, Tennessee train yard in 1997.  During her employment, White complained to Burlington Northern officials about gender discrimination.  After her complaint of gender discrimination, she was reassigned to a less desirable laborer position-although with the same pay and benefits.  White filed a complaint with the EEOC about the demotion; later she was accused of insubordination toward a supervisor and suspended without pay.  More than a month later, the company found she hadn’t been insubordinate, reinstated her and awarded her back pay. 

White sued Burlington Northern for retaliation based in part on the transfer and the suspension.  White won $43,500 in damages plus medical expenses and attorney fees.  Burlington Northern appealed the lower court decision and ultimately this case was heard by the United States Supreme Court.  Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., v. White, 2006 WL 1698953. 

Applying a much broader test for retaliation than had previously existed in many federal judicial circuits, the Supreme Court ruled that Burlington Northern’s suspension of White and the transfer of White to a less desirable job independently established an actionable retaliation claim. 

Until now to prove a retaliation complaint, plaintiffs in certain circuits had to show not only job-related adverse conduct by the employer but an “ultimate employment decision”, such as a firing. 

However, in this recent decision by the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that neither element is necessarily required to create a claim for retaliation under Title VII.  Rather, any action that materially injures or harms an employee who has complained of discrimination and would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination can constitute actionable retaliation.

What does this decision mean to you?  This is a big victory for employees.  This decision is likely to boost the number of retaliation claims being brought nationwide.

News

Health Care

[07/02] UnitedHealth cuts 4,000 jobs and 2008 outlook
[07/02] US contradicts itself over its own ID theft advice
[07/02] Center for medical intelligence expanding
[07/02] Salmonella probe adds foods served with tomatoes
[07/01] Dueling ads pressure Congress on Medicare
[06/26] Fidelity: $85k needed for long-term care costs
[06/25] Health insurance lags most in Southwest, CDC says
[06/24] Jury begins deliberating in Ky. diet drug case
[06/11] Why did food sellers treat tomatoes like hot potatoes?
[06/10] Tomatoes pulled off shelves amid salmonella scare
Read More

Web Resources

FindLaw
Thomson West
U.S. Courts
Westlaw
United States Chamber of Commerce
FirstGov
Legislative Branch
Library of Congress
White House
Internal Revenue Service
National Weather Service
Yahoo!Maps
YellowPages.com
New York Times
Newspapers Online
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
AOL
Google
Yahoo!Legal Blog Directory