The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of a female forklift operator who was given a more physically rigorous assignment after filing a sexual discrimination lawsuit against her employer.
In addition to the new assignment, plaintiff Sheila White given a 37-day suspension from her job which included the Christmas holiday.
The court acknowledged that White received back pay, but that her family was faced with the uncertainty of whether or not she would return to her job and have any income.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said, 'Many reasonable employees would find a month without a paycheck to be a serious hardship.' Breyer added that 'an indefinite suspension without pay could well act as a deterrent, even if the suspended employee eventually received back pay.'
This decision helps define when an employer engages in unlawful retaliation against an employee. Under the court's standard, unlawful retaliation takes place when an employer's actions 'interfere with an employee's efforts' to ensure that he or she is not discriminated against in the workplace, Breyer wrote.
The court also noted that the 1964 Civil Rights Act 'seeks to prevent harm to individuals based on what they do, i.e., their conduct,' such as filing a discrimination lawsuit.
However, Breyer noted that employees who file lawsuits can expect to suffer 'those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.'
Breyer noted that 'context matters' and the court's decision will give future trial courts wide latitude in determining what actions are 'reasonable' on a case-by-case basis.
Justice Samuel Alito signed a separate opinion which warned that the court must not be so broad in its definition that it will 'leave juries hopelessly at sea' in the future.
In the original case before the court, the jury rejected White's claims of sexual discrimination but awarded her $43,000 because of her employer's retaliatory actions.
The case is Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway v. White, 05-259.
