The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that workers who claim they have been retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not need to show that the employer's action amounted to "adverse employment action". Instead, a retaliation suit can be brought if the action could deter a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

The case, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway v. White, involved Sheila White, the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at the railroad's Tennessee yard. Her primary job was as a forklift operator, though her job description included manual labor duties. She complained about repeated statements by her supervisor that women should not work in the Maintenance of Way department, and he was disciplined. Soon after she was removed from forklift duties and reassigned to standard laborer tasks, due to co­worker complaints that "in fairness" a "more senior man" should have the "less arduous and cleaner" forklift job. She filed a complaint of discrimination and retaliation. A few days after her complaint was mailed to the employer, she had a disagreement with a supervisor about which truck she should use. He reported she had been insubordinate, and the company immediately suspended her without pay. She filed a grievance, and after 37 days the company decided she had not been insubordinate. She was paid back pay for the time out (which extended over Christmas and New Year's Day). So ultimately, she lost no pay, and was performing duties within her original job description. The question for the court was whether these facts amounted to illegal retaliation.

The Supreme Court held that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII are not limited to harms related to employment or that occur in the workplace.  When the law forbids an employer from "discriminating against" an applicant or employee because of opposing an unlawful practice or making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a Title VII proceeding or investigation, the law prohibits any employer actions that are harmful to the point that they "could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." The Court rejected the position of lower courts which had limited the scope of actionable retaliatory conduct to "ultimate employment decisions" such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.

This Newsletter is designed to provide information of a general nature only and is not intended to replace or provide professional legal advice.