Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims.[1][2][3] It set a precedent for claims which could be considered retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4][5] In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White | |
---|---|
Argued April 17, 2006 Decided June 22, 2006 | |
Full case name | Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Petitioner v. Sheila White |
Docket no. | 05-259 |
Citations | 548 U.S. 53 (more) 126 S. Ct. 2405; 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 |
Case history | |
Prior | White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). |
Holding | |
The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Thomas |
Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
Laws applied | |
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a); |