Supreme Court Term October 2005 Term
ISSUE
On April 17, 2006, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Burlington Northern Railroad v. White. The case, which came to the Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, will decide meaning of "adverse employment action" for purposes of Title VII. The Court will issue a decision before the end of June.
FACTS
Seven days after filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and three days after the company received notice of the charge Ms. White was suspended without pay. Ms. White filed a grievance and another charge alleging retaliation.
After an investigation and a hearing, the hearing officer, a Burlington Northern manager, found that Ms. White should not have been suspended. After being suspended without pay for thirty-seven days, White was reinstated to her position with full back pay. Ms. White nevertheless proceeded in court against Burlington Northern under Title VII.
To prevent lawsuits based upon trivial workplace dissatisfactions, courts require that an employee prove the existence of an "adverse employment action" to support a Title VII claim. (Some courts, including the Supreme Court use the term "tangible employment action"). This requires a "materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment". Since Ms. White was ultimately “made whole” during the grievance process and received all of her back pay can it be said she was subjected to an “adverse employment action”?
RAMIFICATIONS
The Court’s decision could have wide-reaching ramifications. Much of the early Title VII litigation concerned definitions of job actions. To determine if an employee was demoted or denied a promotion, it is necessary to define these terms. The Court’s decision could require companies and employees alike to re-visit the definitions of core employment actions.