Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53 (2006), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims. It set a precedent for claims which could be considered retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

In June 1997, Sheila White was the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at BNSF's Tennessee Yard in Memphis.

On appeal, BNSF argued that White had not suffered "adverse employment action," and therefore could not bring the suit, because she had not been fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied wages. In November 2002, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals initially agreed, where Judge James S. Gwin was joined by Judge Robert B. Krupansky, over the dissent of Judge Eric L. Clay. The case was reheard en banc, however, and, in April 2004, the full court found for White, holding that the suspension without pay even if back pay was eventually awarded was an "adverse employment action," as was the change of responsibilities within the same job category. The judges differed as to the standard they should apply in assessing such claims.

One hour of oral arguments were heard on April 17, 2006, where Gregory G. Garre, the Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, appeared as a friend for the railroad. On June 22, 2006, the Supreme Court delivered judgment unanimously in favor of Sheila White. It affirmed the decision of the Sixth Circuit, but for different reasons than those used by the lower court. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. Justice Alito concurred in the judgment, but disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the antiretaliation provision of Title VII, writing that "[t]he practical consequences of the test that the majority adopts strongly suggest that this test is not what Congress intended."

In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.