In an decision yesterday, eight U.S. Supreme Court justices took an expansive view of what constitutes prohibited retaliation against workers who file discrimination complaints or assist in Title VII investigations or hearings. While the case involved discrimination on the basis of gender, it applies equally to religious discrimination. In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, (June 23, 2006), the court concluded that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil rights Act (42 USC Sec. 2000e-3(a)), does not prohibit only retaliatory actions that relate to employment or occur at the workplace. They cover any action by an employer "that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant.... [T]hat means that the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."
The Court said that "petty slights, minor annoyances and simple lack of good manners" do not amount to retaliation: "A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, a nonactionable petty slight. But to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination."
Justice Alito concurred in the result of the case, but took a narrower view of the standard for retaliation than the other justices articulated. Today's New York Times reports on the decision.
