Recent Development by Kevin McCormick
When Sheila White arrived at work at the Tennessee Yard of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company on September 26, 1997, she learned that her supervisor had transferred her from her duties as a forklift operator. White had been operating the forklift with unquestioned competence since she started at Burlington, several months earlier. White's new position did not constitute a change in pay, but her new duties were far more physically demanding. Her supervisor explained that the change was due to complaints from other employees that someone with more seniority should have the “‘less arduous and cleaner job”’ of operating the forklift. But White suspected that there were other motivations behind her reassignment. Only ten days earlier, she complained to Burlington that a foreman in the yard was sexually harassing her. That foreman was suspended by Burlington shortly after White was reassigned.
White filed an action against Burlington in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee claiming, among other things, that the reassignment from her forklift position constituted retaliation in violation of Title VII. A jury found in White's favor on her retaliation claims. Burlington appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. After two hearings on the matter, the full Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision in White's favor. The United States Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Breyer, held that the antiretaliation provision of Title VII is not limited to adverse actions relating to the terms and conditions of employment; rather it forbids all harms that would be considered materially adverse to a reasonable employee. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 2412, 2415 (2006).
About the Author
Kevin McCormick. J.D. candidate 2007, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2004, University of Notre Dame.
Citation
81 Tul. L. Rev. 1691 (2007)