Term: 2005
Docket: 05-259
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White
- Pro
05-259 BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY V. WHITE DECISION BELOW: 364 F3d 789 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether an employer may be held liable for retaliatory discrimination under Title VII for any "materially adverse change in the terms of employment" (including a temporary suspension rescinded by the employer with full back pay or an inconvenient reassignment, as the court below held); for any adverse treatment that was "reasonably likely to deter" the plaintiff from engaging in protected activity (as the Ninth Circuit holds); or only for an "ultimate employment decision" (as two other courts of appeals hold). 2. Whether a plaintiff, whose evidence on liability is deemed sufficient by a court of appeals, is permitted a stand-alone retrial on punitive damages under a mere preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, rather than a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 00-6780, 01-5024
In the case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of White who had filed a complaint against her employer for retaliation after she reported sexual harassment. The court held that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision protects an employee from any adverse action taken by their employer as a result of filing a discrimination complaint and is not limited to actions affecting terms and conditions of employment only. In this case, White was reassigned to less desirable duties within her job classification following her report about harassment which constituted unlawful retaliation under Title VII even though it did not involve firing or demotion.
In the dissenting opinion for Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White, Justice Alito argued that the majority had expanded the definition of retaliation beyond what Congress intended in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He contended that a reasonable employee would not be dissuaded from making or supporting a discrimination claim due to reassignment with different tasks but no change in pay, benefits, or work hours as was done to White by her employer after she filed a sexual harassment complaint. According to him, this interpretation could potentially lead employers to hesitate before taking any action against an employee who has lodged a complaint out of fear it might be seen as retaliation even if there are legitimate reasons for such actions like poor performance or misconduct.
