Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White
547 U.S. ___ (2006) (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII's anti-retaliation provision is not confined to actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment. An employer's action constitutes unlawful retaliation if it is materially adverse to a reasonable employee, meaning it could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Facts:
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company hired Sheila White as a track laborer, the only woman in her department.
- White was soon assigned to operate a forklift, which was considered a less arduous and more prestigious task than other track laborer duties.
- In September 1997, White complained to company officials that her immediate supervisor, Bill Joiner, had repeatedly made inappropriate and insulting remarks to her.
- Following an internal investigation, Burlington suspended Joiner and ordered him to attend sexual-harassment training.
- On the same day White was informed of Joiner's discipline, her other supervisor, Marvin Brown, removed White from forklift duty and reassigned her to standard, more physically demanding track laborer tasks.
- Brown explained that the reassignment was in response to co-worker complaints that a more senior man should have the forklift job.
- After White filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, she had a disagreement with another supervisor, who reported her for insubordination.
- Brown then immediately suspended White without pay for 37 days, though she was later reinstated with full backpay after an internal grievance procedure found she had not been insubordinate.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheila White filed a lawsuit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. in the U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII.
- A jury found in White’s favor on two retaliation claims (job reassignment and suspension without pay) and awarded her compensatory damages.
- The District Court denied Burlington's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- Burlington (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court), where a three-judge panel initially reversed the trial court's judgment.
- The full Sixth Circuit then vacated the panel’s decision and heard the case en banc, affirming the District Court's judgment in favor of White (appellee), but the judges could not agree on the proper legal standard.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Burlington's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a split among the circuit courts regarding the proper standard for Title VII retaliation claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Title VII's anti-retaliation provision prohibit any employer action that a reasonable employee would find materially adverse, such that it would dissuade them from making or supporting a discrimination charge, even if the action is not directly related to employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. Title VII's anti-retaliation provision prohibits employer actions that are materially adverse and would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, and it is not limited to actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment. The court's reasoning is twofold. First, the statutory language of the anti-retaliation provision (§ 704(a)) is broader than the substantive anti-discrimination provision (§ 703(a)), as it lacks specific limiting phrases like 'compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.' Second, the provisions serve different purposes: the substantive provision aims to achieve a non-discriminatory workplace, while the anti-retaliation provision aims to prevent interference with the enforcement of the Act's guarantees. To achieve this latter purpose, the law must prohibit a broad range of retaliatory conduct, including actions outside the workplace, that might deter an employee from coming forward. The standard for harm is objective ('a reasonable employee') and contextual, intended to separate significant harms from 'petty slights or minor annoyances.' Applying this standard, both White's reassignment to a more arduous job and her 37-day suspension without pay were materially adverse actions that could deter a reasonable employee from complaining.
Concurring - Justice Alito
No. The standard for retaliation under § 704(a) should be the same as for substantive discrimination under § 703(a), requiring a 'materially adverse employment action' that affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Justice Alito argues that reading the two provisions in harmony provides an objective standard and avoids the 'perverse' result of giving retaliation victims broader protection than victims of the underlying discrimination. He criticizes the majority’s 'dissuade a reasonable worker' test as having no basis in the statutory text and creating a vague, impractical standard that will be difficult for lower courts to apply. Despite disagreeing with the majority's legal standard, he concurs in the judgment because he believes both White's reassignment—which he characterizes as a demotion—and her suspension without pay qualify as materially adverse employment actions under his preferred, more restrictive test.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of actionable retaliation under Title VII by detaching it from the 'terms and conditions of employment' framework. The Court established a new, context-sensitive 'materially adverse' standard that focuses on the deterrent effect of an employer's action on a reasonable employee. This ruling rejected the more restrictive 'ultimate employment decisions' test used by some circuits, thereby expanding protection for employees who report discrimination. The case created a more uniform national standard for retaliation claims and is likely to encourage employees to file complaints by protecting them from a wider array of punitive conduct, while tasking lower courts with distinguishing significant harms from trivial workplace annoyances.
Unlock the full brief for Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White