(2006) 548 U.S. 53
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 22, 2006
01. Facts
Sheila White was the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway’s Tennessee Yard, hired as a “track laborer” after the roadmaster learned of her forklift experience and assigned her forklift duties (548 U.S. at p. 57). After she complained about harassment, her supervisor was disciplined, but White was reassigned from forklift duty to standard, more arduous track-laborer tasks and later suspended without pay for over a month (though eventually reinstated with back pay) (id. at p. 57). She sued for retaliation under Title VII (id. at p. 57).
02. Procedural posture
The United States Supreme Court affirmed judgment for White, defining the standard for an actionable retaliatory action (548 U.S. at p. 57).
03. Issue
What employer conduct qualifies as an actionable “adverse action” under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision — whether it is limited to ultimate employment actions or to conduct at the workplace, or reaches more broadly.
Holding
Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is not limited to employer actions affecting the terms and conditions of employment or occurring at the workplace; it prohibits any employer action that a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse — that is, action that might well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. White’s reassignment to harder duties and her suspension without pay met that standard.
05. Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the anti-retaliation provision serves a different purpose from the substantive anti-discrimination provision: it seeks to prevent employers from deterring victims and witnesses from invoking Title VII. Effective protection therefore must reach harms beyond the workplace and beyond formal job terms. The “materially adverse / would dissuade a reasonable worker” standard captures that purpose while filtering out trivial slights.
Practice Pointer
Burlington Northern broadened actionable retaliation to anything that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining — a standard echoed in California’s FEHA retaliation law (see Yanowitz). Plaintiff’s counsel should look beyond firings and demotions to reassignments, schedule changes, exclusion, and other materially adverse conduct, and frame the retaliatory acts by their deterrent effect on a reasonable employee.
06. Open questions
Burlington Northern set the federal retaliation standard; its precise interaction with California’s “materially adverse” FEHA standard from Yanowitz, and what specific actions cross the materiality line, remain matters worked out case by case.
Cite this entry
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006) 548 U.S. 53.
“White, the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at Burlington’s Tennessee Yard.” — 548 U.S. at p. 57
Source: United States Reports / official slip opinion – [insert durable supremecourt.gov link at verification].