{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

BNSF v White 121PXTTime of Request

BNSF v White 121PXTTime of Request - 1BNSF v White 121PXT...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 BNSF v White 121PXT Time of Request: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 07:31:19 EST Client ID/Project Name: xyz Number of Lines: 823 Job Number: 1843:189527567 Research Information Service: Terms and Connectors Search Print Request: Current Document: 1 Source: U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers' Edition Search Terms: number(05-259) Send to: PARISH, JUDY FUNDERBURK & FUNDERBURK, LLP 2777 ALLEN PKWY STE 1000 HOUSTON, TX 77019-2165
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 of 3 DOCUMENTS BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner v. SHEILA WHITE No. 05-259 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 548 U.S. 53; 126 S. Ct. 2405; 165 L. Ed. 2d 345; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4895; 74 U.S.L.W. 4423; 98 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 385; 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42,394; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 326 April 17, 2006, Argued June 22, 2006, Decided NOTICE: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version. PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry., 364 F.3d 789, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7191 (6th Cir. Tenn., 2004) DISPOSITION: [***345] Affirmed. DECISION: Anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3(a)) held (1) not to be confined to actions and harms related to employment or occurring at workplace, but (2) to cover only employer actions materially adverse to reasonable employee or job applicant. SUMMARY: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000e et seq.) (1) in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e- 2(a), forbade employment discrimination that was based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"; and (2) in its anti-retaliation provision (42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e- 3(a)), forbade discrimination against an employee or job applicant because that individual "opposed any practice" made unlawful by Title VII or "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in" a Title VII proceeding or investigation. A railway company's maintenance worker, who was the only woman in her department, operated the forkliftat a company site. After she complained to her employer of alleged sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor, the employer disciplined the immediate supervisor but reassigned the maintenance worker from forklift duty to standard track laborer tasks. The worker filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the reassignment was unlawful gender discrimination and retaliation for her complaint. Subsequently, after a dispute with a different immediate supervisor, the worker was suspended without pay for purported insubordination. The employer later concluded that the worker had not been insubordinate, reinstated her, and awarded her backpay for the 37 days she had been suspended. The worker (1) filed an EEOC retaliation charge that was based on her suspension; and (2) after exhausting her administrative remedies, filed [***346] against the employer, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, an action alleging that the employer's changing of her job responsibilities and suspending her for 37 days amounted to unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 18

BNSF v White 121PXTTime of Request - 1BNSF v White 121PXT...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online