1 of 3 DOCUMENTS
BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner v.
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
The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject
to change pending release of the final published version.
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)
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.
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
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
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.
worker (1) filed an EEOC retaliation charge that was
based on her suspension; and (2) after exhausting her
administrative remedies, filed
employer, in the United States District Court for the