Commentary: U.S. Supreme Court hears an important Title VII Case.

Byline: John Finerty

What protections does Title VII offer to employees who report workplace discrimination or cooperate in the enforcement process to remedy discrimination? Stated differently, when can an employer safely discharge, demote or otherwise discipline an employee if the same employee has also reported discrimination or cooperated in an enforcement proceeding to remedy workplace discrimination? The U.S. Supreme Court will address the issue in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co. v. White, Case No. 05-259. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on April 17, 2006.

The specific issue presented in the case is which standard should apply to evaluate whether an employer has taken an "adverse employment action" against an employee who files a discrimination claim under Title VII. The circuit courts of appeal are split on the appropriate standard, so the Supreme Court has three alternative standards to choose from.

The case comes from the Sixth Circuit that applied a "material adverse change" in the terms and conditions of employment standard. The decision will likely have far reaching impact under Title VII, but may also apply to the Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other employment statutes that use comparable "adverse employment action" language.

Background

Sheila White worked at a Tennessee rail yard run by Burlington Northern. She was assigned to operate a forklift and over the years compiled an unblemished work record. The forklift job, however, was a coveted position in the rail yard because it was not as physically demanding as other jobs in the yard.

White complained to company management that she was forced to endure a general "anti-woman feeling" after a number of alleged sexual harassment incidents. According to White, co-employees told her they thought women should not be working on a railroad or in the rail yard; one of the employees alleged to have made such a statement was White's immediate supervisor. The company commenced a formal investigation that substantiated White's complaints and resulted in her immediate supervisor being suspended and retrained.

The sexual harassment investigation, however, uncovered complaints about White's job performance. The investigation revealed that part of the "anti-woman" sentiment arose because White did not have the seniority to work the forklift position and male co-employees thought a more senior male employee was entitled to the...