Opinion ID: 1446555
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McCoy's Discrimination Claims

Text: In Burlington Northern, the Court expressly limited its holding to Title VII retaliation claims: The underscored words in the substantive [anti-discrimination] provisionhire, discharge, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, employment opportunities, and status as an employee explicitly limit the scope of that provision to actions that affect employment or alter the conditions of the workplace. No such limiting words appear in the anti-retaliation provision. Given these linguistic differences, the question here is not whether identical or similar words should be read in pari materia to mean the same thing. Rather, the question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. We normally presume that, where words differ as they differ here, `Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.' There is strong reason to believe that Congress intended the differences that its language suggests, for the two provisions differ not only in language but in purpose as well. The anti-discrimination provision seeks a workplace where individuals are not discriminated against because of their racial, ethnic, religious, or gender-based status. The anti-retaliation provision seeks to secure that primary objective by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee's efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act's basic guarantees. The substantive provision seeks to prevent injury to individuals based on who they are, i.e., their status. The anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent harm to individuals based on what they do, i.e., their conduct. . . . . Thus, purpose reinforces what language already indicates, namely, that the anti-retaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment. [25] Even though our precedent recognizing only ultimate employment decisions as actionable adverse employment actions remains controlling for Title VII discrimination claims and therefore continues to justify summary judgment dismissal of McCoy's discrimination claims, [26] her retaliation claims requires a closer look post- Burlington Northern.