Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. White

548 U.S. 53 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at D's Tennessee Yard. P was hired as a 'track laborer,' a job that involves removing and replacing track components, transporting track material, cutting brush, and clearing litter and cargo spillage from the right-of-way. A co-worker who had previously operated the forklift chose to assume other responsibilities. P was immediately assigned to operate the forklift. P also performed some of the other track laborer tasks, but operating the forklift was P's primary responsibility. In September 1997, P complained that her immediate supervisor, Bill Joiner, had repeatedly told her that women should not be working in the Maintenance of Way department. After an internal investigation, D suspended Joiner for 10 days and ordered him to attend a sexual harassment training session. Almost immediately D was removed from forklift duty and assigned to perform only standard track laborer tasks. The manager explained that the reassignment reflected co-workers' complaints that, in fairness, a ''more senior man'' should have the 'less arduous and cleaner job' of the forklift operator. P filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). P claimed that the reassignment of her duties amounted to unlawful gender-based discrimination and retaliation for her having earlier complained about Joiner. P filed a second retaliation charge with the Commission, claiming that another manager had placed her under surveillance and was monitoring her daily activities. A few days later, P and her immediate supervisor, Percy Sharkey, disagreed about which truck should transport P from one location to another. Sharkey told management that P had been insubordinate. P was immediately suspended without pay. P invoked internal grievance procedures. Those procedures led d to conclude that P had not been insubordinate. D reinstated P to her position and awarded her backpay for the 37 days she was suspended. P filed an additional retaliation charge with the EEOC based on the suspension. P filed this Title VII action claiming that changing her job responsibilities and suspending her for 37 days without pay amounted to unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. § 2000e-3(a). A jury found in P's favor and awarded her $43,500 in compensatory damages, including $3,250 in medical expenses. The full Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in P's favor on both retaliation claims. The judges differed as to the proper standard to apply. D appealed.