Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneyappealmotionburden of proofharassmentpunitive damagescompensatory damages
plaintiffdamagesverdictdiscriminationpunitive damages

Related Cases

Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 478 F.3d 985, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,066, 154 Lab.Cas. P 60,357, 25 IER Cases 1025, 72 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 483, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1411, 32 A.L.R.6th 795
View Case »
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 478 F.3d 985, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,066, 154 Lab.Cas. P 60,357, 25 IER Cases 1025, 72 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 483, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1411, 32 A.L.R.6th 795
View Case »
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 478 F.3d 985, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,066, 154 Lab.Cas. P 60,357, 25 IER Cases 1025, 72 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 483, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1411, 32 A.L.R.6th 795
View Case »
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547, 74 USLW 4034, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,273, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,008, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 21
View Case »
Kristen L. v. Benjamin W., Not Reported in P.3d, 2014 WL 2716842
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 93 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1011, 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,633, 2004 Fed.App. 0102P

Facts

Sheila White was hired by Burlington Northern in June 1997 and was the only female in her department. After she complained about sexual harassment by her supervisor, she was reassigned from her forklift operator position to a more arduous track laborer job, which she alleged was in retaliation for her complaint. Following her second EEOC charge, White was suspended without pay for thirty-seven days, after which she was reinstated with back pay. The jury awarded her compensatory damages for the retaliation claim but denied punitive damages.

Before June 1997, Ralph Ellis operated the stationary forklift for Burlington Northern at its Tennessee Yard in Memphis. In June 1997, Ellis resigned from the forklift position in order to work on a mobile track gang, in which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position.

Issue

Did Burlington Northern's actions, including the suspension without pay and reassignment, constitute adverse employment actions under Title VII, and was the jury correctly instructed on punitive damages?

Burlington Northern contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on White's retaliation claim because, according to Burlington Northern, neither White's transfer from the forklift job to a standard track laborer job nor her suspension without pay for thirty-seven days constitutes an adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII.

Rule

An adverse employment action under Title VII is defined as a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment, which can include suspension without pay and reassignment to a less favorable position.

To support a claim for retaliation under Title VII a 'plaintiff must establish: (1) that he engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) that he was the subject of adverse employment action; and (3) that there exists a casual [sic] link between his protected activity and the adverse action of his employer.

Analysis

The court determined that White's suspension without pay for thirty-seven days and her reassignment from a forklift operator to a track laborer position were both adverse employment actions. The court emphasized that the suspension, despite being followed by reinstatement with back pay, still constituted an adverse action. The court also found that the jury was incorrectly instructed regarding the burden of proof for punitive damages, which should have been a preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence.

We now apply our definition of adverse employment action to the actions at issue in the present case. We consider the suspension first. Burlington Northern argues that a suspension without pay, followed thirty-seven days later by a reinstatement with back pay, is not an adverse employment action.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Burlington Northern's motion for judgment as a matter of law and the award of attorney's fees to White, but remanded the case for further proceedings on the punitive damages issue.

We conclude, however, that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of punitive damages, and therefore we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Sheila White prevailed on her retaliation claim because the jury found that Burlington Northern's actions constituted retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Burlington Northern on the sex discrimination claim and in favor of White on the retaliation claim.

You must be