The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a ruling that expands retaliation protections for employees who complain about workplace bias. The ruling limits employers’ discretion to make routine employment decisions.
The case involved Sheila White, a forklift operator for Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway in Memphis, Tennessee. After she complained about sex discrimination and harassment at the hands of her male co-workers and supervisor, she was transferred to a “track labor” job, which was more physically demanding than the forklift position. White then filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and shortly afterwards she was suspended indefinitely for insubordination. She filed a grievance over the suspension, which lasted 37 days, and was reinstated with back pay to the track labor position.
White sued, charging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the federal antibias law. A jury threw out the sex discrimination claim, but found she was the victim of retaliation as a result of the job transfer and suspension. The jury awarded White $43,000. The company appealed the verdict, arguing that the transfer and suspension weren’t adverse actions upon which a retaliation claim could be based because White didn’t suffer any loss of pay, and the duties of the track labor job fell within her job description. Burlington contended that only ultimate employment actions, such as discharge or demotion, could support a retaliation claim under Title VII.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously decided that the actions White complained of indeed satisfied the standard for retaliation. According to the high court, an employee can state a claim for retaliation even if the actions don’t involve termination or lost wages. The court made clear that to amount to retaliation, “the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” And, said the court, “Many reasonable workers would find a month without a paycheck to be a serious hardship.”
This ruling will likely open the floodgates for employees to sue for retaliation, and even seemingly routine employer decisions such as a reassignment without loss of pay may now be called into question. We’ll have full details on this ruling, and steps employers can take to protect themselves, in an upcoming issue of the California Employer Advisor.