Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White (548 U.S. 53)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 22, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 548 U.S. 53 · 126 S. Ct. 2405
- Decided
- June 22, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination against “any individual” based on that individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Pub. L. 88-352, §704, 78 Stat. 257, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a). A separate section of the Act—its antiretaliation provision—prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] 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 investigation. § 2000e-3(a). The Courts of Appeals have come to different conclusions about the scope of the Act’s antiretaliation provision, particularly the reach of its phrase “discriminate against.” Does that provision confine actionable retaliation to activity that affects the terms and conditions of employment? And how harmful must the adverse actions be to fall within its scope? We conclude that the antiretaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. We also conclude that the provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant. In the present context that means that the employer’s actions must be…
Excerpt of a 33,010-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.