Throwing Stupid Money After Dumb Money (Retaliation)

SCOTUS Case that Changed the Rules

This change in the rules of retaliation was the result of a landmark Supreme Court case, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co v. White 126 S. CT. 2405 (2006), says Cotham. Here’s her outline of the famous case:

1. Ms. White drove a forklift for Burlington, the railroad company.
2. She complained that her supervisor sexually harassed her.
3. Burlington investigated.
4. The supervisor was suspended for 10 days and required to attend training.
5. Burlington transferred White to a “new” position repairing railroad tracks, a “worse” and much more physically demanding position.
6. She filed a charge with the EEOC alleging two complaints of retaliation related to her transfer and alleged subjection to surveillance and monitoring.
7. Shortly afterwards, Burlington suspended her without pay for 37 days. (Why? “Because they are idiots,” says Cotham.)
8. White’s suspension ended when Burlington reinstated her with back pay as the result of a union grievance she filed.
9. White filed an additional EEOC charge related to the suspension.
10. A federal jury in Tennessee awarded her $43,500.00 in compensatory damages based on her retaliation claim. The company appealed. (They were at the Dollar Store, says Cotham. Why did they appeal? See Number 7.)
11. The award was initially reversed on appeal but then later reinstated by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
12. Burlington appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Are class action lawyers peering at your comp practices? It’s likely, but you can keep them at bay by finding and eliminating any wage and hour violations yourself. Our editors recommend BLR’s easy-to-use FLSA Wage & Hour Self-Audit Guide. Try it for 30 days … on us.

There Burlington argued: The behavior at issue did not “materially” change White’s terms and conditions of employment and should not be considered retaliation. For example, they said, White’s wages didn’t change.

White argued: A lower standard should be adopted under which any negative action is enough to bring a claim.

So who had the more convincing argument?

Apparently, Ms. White did.

The Court concluded that retaliation provisions provide broader protections for victims of retaliation than they do for victims of harassment or discrimination, who must demonstrate impact on the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

The Court found that retaliation occurs regardless of its impact on employment if the conduct was “materially adverse,” meaning it “might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting charges of discrimination.’”

All you need to avoid exempt/nonexempt classification and overtime errors, now in BLR’s award-winning FLSA Wage & Hour Self-Audit Guide. Find out more.

Most Common Retaliation Claims

The most common retaliation claims involve employees who allege the employer first harassed or discriminated against them and later punished them for filing a complaint with the employer or a relevant federal agency.

Employers are prohibited from punishing employees for exercising other rights assured to them.

State & Federal Prohibitions

The protection against retaliation goes beyond Title VII, says Cotham. Employers are also prohibited from retaliation under the FLSA, OSHA EPA, GINA, and ADEA, for applying for leave under the FMLA,or for asking for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA/ADAAA.

It’s important to note that there is no requirement that whatever the employee complained about in the first place was actually illegal. The complaint can actually lack merit, says Cotham. The employee’s claim does not have to hold up in court.

Follow Stephen Bruce on Google+