Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
Argued: April 17, 2006
Decided: June 22, 2006
Facts
The basic premise of Sheila White’s relegation to a track laborer from a forklift operator at Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway was the complaint filed for alleged sexual harassment and discrimination from her colleagues and supervisors. Considering the labor-intensive nature of the new job, White sued the company for discrimination and retaliation at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but she was dismissed by the employer without compensation citing an alleged insubordination case with a senior worker. However, White was later absolved and reinstated with full back pay after thorough internal intelligence. Nevertheless, she decided to seek reprieve at the federal court for the unlawful retaliation and was dully compensated. Following…show more content… The respondent is a proponent of adopting the “material change in circumstances” principle arguing that alternative standards could advance retaliation claims. Moreover, despite the previous cause of action, the respondent believes that the reinstatement and payment of the plaintiff, negated the adverse employment action.
On the contrary, White seeks a “reasonably likely to deter” as the guiding principle to encourage aggrieved workers to validly present claims. Furthermore, she argues that the aforementioned principle was violated because she was transferred and suspended in the aftermath of presenting a complaint to EOCC. Moreover, applying “the materially adverse change” tenet would be a non-viable option because White was devastated for being denied her salary for over a month.
Rule of Law and Analysis
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws all work-related discriminatory practices against workers by an employee including
