Legal Document

547 U.S. ___ (2006) BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. SHEILA WHITE. No. 05-259. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 17, 2006. Decided June 22, 2006 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion Court. Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 forbids employ- ment 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 C. §2000e-2(a). A separate section Actits anti-retaliation provisionforbids an employer from "discriminat[ing] against" employee job applicant because individual "opposed any practice" made unlawful by "made a charge, testified, as- sisted, participated in" proceeding inves- tigation. §2000e-3(a). The Courts Appeals have come to different conclu- sions about scope Act's provi- sion, particularly reach its phrase "discriminate against." Does provision confine actionable retalia- tion activity affects terms and conditions employment? And how harmful must adverse actions be fall within scope? We conclude does not harms it those are related employment occur at workplace. also covers (and only those) would been materially reasonable applicant. In present context means employer's point they could well dissuade rea- sonable worker making supporting charge discrimination. I This case arises out supervisors peti- tioner Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company took respondent Sheila White, woman working in Maintenance Way department Bur- lington's Tennessee Yard. 1997, Burlington's roadmaster, Marvin Brown, interviewed White ex- pressed interest her previous experience operating forklifts. hired "track laborer," involves removing replacing track compo- nents, transporting material, cutting brush, clearing litter cargo spillage right-of-way. Soon after arrived job, co-worker who had previously operated forklift chose assume other responsibilities. Brown immediately assigned operate forklift. While she performed some laborer tasks, was White's primary responsibility. September complained officials immediate supervisor, Bill Joiner, repeatedly told women should department. said, insulting inappropriate remarks front male colleagues. After internal investi- gation, suspended Joiner for 10 days ordered him attend sexual-harassment training ses- sion. On 26, Joiner's discipline. At same time, he duty assigning per- form standard tasks. explained reassignment reflected co-worker's complaints that, fairness, " 'more senior man'" "less arduous cleaner job" operator. 364 F.3d 789, 792 (CA6 2004) (case below). October 10, filed complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC Commis- sion). She claimed duties amounted gender-based retaliation having earlier Joiner. early December, second Commission, claiming placed under surveillance monitoring daily activi- ties. That mailed December 8. few later, Percy Sharkey, disagreed which truck trans- port one location another. specific facts disagreement dispute, but upshot is Sharkey later afternoon insubordinate. without pay. invoked grievance proce- dures. Those procedures led reinstated position awarded backpay 37 suspended. additional re- taliation EEOC suspension. B exhausting administrative remedies, this action federal court. As relevant here, actions (1) changing responsibilities, (2) suspending payamounted violation VII. jury found favor both these claims. It $43,500 compensatory damages, including $3,250 medical expenses. District denied post-trial motion judgment matter law. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(b). Initially, divided Sixth Circuit panel reversed 310 443 (2002). full Ap- peals vacated panel's decision, however, heard en banc. court then affirmed Court's all members banc voted uphold judgment, differed proper apply. Compare F.3d, 795- 800, id., 809 (Clay, J., concurring). II VII's (or applicant) has "opposed" practice assisted, "investigation, proceeding, hearing." No doubts term refers distinctions differences treatment injure protected individuals. Jack- son Birmingham Bd. Ed., 544 167, 174 (2005); Price Waterhouse Hopkins, 490 228, 244 (1989) (plurality opinion); see 4 Oxford English Dictionary 758 (2d ed. 1989) (def. 3b). But Circuits conclusions whether challenged workplace constitute retaliation. Some insisted upon close relationship between retaliatory employment. majority case, example, said plaintiff show "adverse action," defined "materially change conditions" 795 (internal quotation marks omitted). thus joined apply substantive offense, holding "resul[t] effect 'terms, condi- tions, benefits' employment." Von Gunten Mary- land, 243 858, 866 (CA4 2001); Robinson Pittsburgh, 120 1286, 1300 (CA3 1997). Fifth Eighth adopted more restrictive approach. They employ "ultimate deci- sio[n]" standard, limits con- duct acts 'such hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, compensating.'" Mattern Eastman Kodak Co., 104 702, 707 (CA5 1997); Manning Metropolitan Life Ins. 127 686, 692 (CA8 Other so limited pro- vision. Seventh Columbia "em- ployer's material employee," contexts like likely "dissuaded reason- able dis- crimination." Washington Illinois Dept. Revenue, 420 658, 662 (CA7 2005); Rochon Gonzales, 438 1211, 1217-1218 (CADC 2006). Ninth Circuit, following guidance, plain- tiff simply establish 'adverse motive reasonably deter charging party others engaging tected activity.'" Ray Henderson, 217 1234, 1242- 1243 (CA9 2000). concurring judges below applied last mentioned standard. (opinion Clay, J.). granted certiorari resolve disagreement. To do requires us decide anti- resulting we characterize act order provision's scope. Petitioner Solicitor General argue correct require link chal- lenged terms, conditions, status note substan- tive anti-discrimination protects employment-related add read pari materia provision. prohibited similarly conduct "affects employee's 'compensation, privileges employment.'" Brief States Amicus Curiae 13 (quoting §2000e-2(a)(1)); (same). cannot agree. language differs important ways. Section 703(a) sets forth core terms: "It shall employer "(1) fail refuse hire discharge indi- vidual, otherwise discriminate vidual respect his compensation, employment, such race, ori- gin; "(2) limit, segregate, classify employees applicants way deprive tend opportunities adversely affect employee, §2000e- 2(a) (emphasis added). 704(a) . op- posed subchapter, manner investigation, hearing subchapter." §2000e-3(a) underscored words provision "hire," "discharge," "compensation, employment," "employment opportunities," "status employee"explicitly limit alter limiting appear Given linguistic differences, question here identical similar mean thing. See, e.g., Pasquantino States, 349, 355, n. 2 McFarland Scott, 512 849, 858 (1994); Sullivan Everhart, 494 83, 92 (1990). Rather, Congress in- tended make legal difference. normally presume where differ "'Congress intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion.'" Russello 464 16, 23 (1983). There strong reason believe intended suggests, two provisions purpose well. seeks individuals discriminated their racial, ethnic, religious, status. McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, 411 792, 800-801 (1973). secure objective preventing interfering (through retaliation) efforts advance enforcement basic guarantees. prevent injury are, i.e., harm what do, conduct. first objective, did need prohibit anything than crimination. "equality opportunities" elimina- practices bring "stratified environments," achieved were miraculously eliminated. focusing concern em- ployment Were eliminated, achieved. An can effectively retali- ate taking directly causing outside F. 3d, 1213 (FBI "took FBI's refusal, contrary policy, investigate death threats prisoner [the agent] wife"); Berry Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 980, 984, 986 (CA10 1996) (finding false criminal charges former ployee discrimination). many forms effective take. Hence, construction fully achieve "primary purpose," namely, "[m]aintaining unfettered access statutory remedial mechanisms." Shell Oil 519 337, 346 (1997). Thus, reinforces already cates, provision, unlike discriminatory ment. Cf. Wachovia Bank, N. A. Schmidt, 546 U. S. (slip op., 14) (rejecting "trea[t] venue subject-matter jurisdiction prescriptions materia" doing "overloo[k] discrete offices concepts"). Our precedent compel conclusion. Indeed, no offers petitioner significant support. lington Industries, Inc. Ellerth, 524 742 (1998), notes, speaks requirement violations involve "tangible action" "hiring, firing, failing promote, significantly decision caus- ing benefits." Id., 761. Ellerth "identify class [hostile work environment] cases" held vicariously liable (without affirmative defense) supervisors. 760; Pennsylvania State Police Suders, 542 129, 143 (2004) (explain- holdings Faragher Boca Raton, 775 dividing hostile environment claims into categories, strictly tangible taken af- firmative defense). discuss general U.S., 761 (using "concept [that] appears numerous cases Appeals" "for resolution vicarious liability issue"). mention sion all. most, ought contain. acceptance view. Nor find support view EEOC's interpretations concede stated 1991 1988 Compliance Manu- als "ad- verse action." Manual §614.1(d), p. 614-5 (1991) (hereinafter Manual); (1988) Manual). manuals lists "[e]ssential [e]lements" claim along suggesting broader interpretation. §614.3(d), pp. 614-8 614-9 (complainant "that (s)he subjected protest opposition"); Moreover, before publication manuals, expressed broad interpretation Interpretive Manual, Reference Law Personnel §491.2 (1972) 1972 Manual) (§704(a) "is provide 'exceptionally protection' protestors discrimi- natory practices"), §8, 8-13 (1998) 1998 Manual), available http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/ retal.html (as visited 20, 2006, Clerk file) "prohibit[s] activity"). Commission's direct state- vision covered answers negativedirectly petitioner's reading Act. Ibid. Finally, accept General's "anomalous" statute protection victims whom primarily protect, race-based, ethnic-based, religion- based, 17; 14-15. provided kinds comparable statutes judicial suggestion provisions. National Labor Relations Act, "drawn analogies contexts," Hishon King Spalding, 467 69, 76, 8 (1984), provides illustrative example. 29 §158(a)(3) (substantive prohibiting "discrimina- regard condition encourage discourage membership labor or- ganization") §158(a)(4) (retaliation "discharge given testimony subchapter"); Johnson's Restaurants, NLRB, 461 731, 740 (1983) (construing "prohibi[t] wide variety restrain, straining, exercise ties," filing lawsuit employee); NLRB Scrivener, 405 117, 121-122 (purpose en- sure 'completely free coercion reporting'" practices). event, explained, remove perceived "anomaly," justify difference supra, 8-9. depends cooperation willing file witnesses. "Plainly, forcement expected if felt approach grievances." Mitchell Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 288, 292 (1960). Interpreting helps assure accomplishment depends. For reasons, coterminous. extends beyond workplace-related harm. therefore reject stan- dards treated forbidding so-called "ulti- mate decisions." 5. retaliation, produces used differing describe level seriousness rise becomes agree formulation set Circuits. our view, adverse, "which might 'dissuaded discrimination.'" Rochon, 1219 Washington, 662). speak adversity trivial harms. VII, "a civility code American workplace." Oncale Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 75, 80 (1998); Faragher, S., 788 (judicial standards sexual harassment "filter attacking 'the ordinary tribulations workplace, spo- radic use abusive language, gender-related jokes, occasional teasing'"). report behavior immunize petty slights minor annoyances often take place experience. 1 B. Lindemann P. Grossman, Discrimina- 669 (3d (noting "courts personality conflicts generate antipathy" 'snubbing' co-workers" §704(a)). interference "unfettered access" mechanisms. Robinson, 346. "to complaining EEOC," courts, ers. slights, annoyances, simple lack good manners will create deterrence. 8-13. refer reactions judging objective. judicially administrable. avoids uncertainties unfair discrepancies plague effort determine plaintiff's unusual subjective feelings. empha- sized contexts, concerns animate here. 141 (constructive doctrine); Harris Forklift Systems, 510 21 (1993) (hostile doctrine). significance de- pend particular circumstances. Context matters. "The real social impact pends constellation surrounding circumstances, expectations, relationships cap- tured recitation physical performed." Oncale, 81-82. schedule may little workers, enormously young mother school age children. Cf., flex-time critical disabled child). su- pervisor's refusal invite lunch nor- mally trivial, nonactionable slight. retaliate excluding weekly contributes profes- sional advancement 8-14. rather prohib- ited preferable, "act immate- rial situations others." 661. currence, reviewing consider "the nature charge." Post, 6 (ALITO, curring judgment). tied act, underlying basis complaint. By materiality perspec- person position, screen while capturing assisting III Applying there sufficient evidentiary jury's verdict claim. Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 133, 150-151 (2000). Burling- ton's retaliation: tasks 37-day suspension determination motivation retaliatory. caused. instructed "suffered ment," App. 63, upheld finding stringent (the §704 forbidden §703). today makes clear required insofar "mate- rially adverse," findings adequately supported. First, argues where, description. 24-25. why so. Almost every category responsibilities less desirable others. Common sense suggests bringing insist spend time performing easier agreeable. presumably consistently "[r]etaliatory assignments" classic "widely recognized" example "forbidden retaliation." §614.7, 614-31 614-32; §495.2 involving ordering unpleasant assignment retaliation" racial complaint); Dec. 74-77, 1974 WL 3847, *4 (Jan. 18, 1974) ("Employers enjoined" "from imposing assignments charges"). sure, automati- cally actionable. Whether circumstances "should judged considering 'all circumstances.'" 81. considerable evidence "by accounts dirtier"; "forklift operator qualifications, indication prestige"; objectively considered better resented occupying it." 803 (inter- nal Based record, sponsibilities employee. Second, pay lacked ton ultimately backpay. says "it defies rescinded investigatory back pay" unlawful, throughout much history, relief equitable position. 36. reference remedies convincing. all, injunc- tions "bar future," Albemarle Paper Co. Moody, 422 405, 418 (1975) omitted), relief. §706(g), 261, §2000e-5(g). issued injunction purposes, even amended permit intentional recover compensa- tory received here) punitive cluding necessary 'help whole.'" West Gibson, 527 212, 219 (1999) H. R. Rep. 102-40, pt. 1, 64-65 (1991)); §§1981a(a)(1), (b). undermine congressional employers avoid Neither convincing insufficient evidence. receive family live income. know during when return work. Many month paycheck serious hardship. described emotional hardship "no income, money" fact Tr. 154 ("That worst Christmas my life. money, feel bad. got very depressed"). obtained distress. facing choice retaining paycheck) com- plaint choose former. say, indefinite deterrent, eventually Mitchell, ("[I]t needs argument fear economic induce aggrieved quietly substandard conditions"). conclusion one. IV affirmed. ordered. ALITO, judgment. concur disagree major- ity's antiretaliation 1964, §704(a), majority's will, fear, lead practical problems. Two prohibits range practices.[1] Among things, §703(a) vidual's §2000e-2(a)(1) complementary closely purposes. states pertinent part: (em- phasis ascertain meaning "discriminate" §704(a). possible suggested §§703(a) 704(a). springs mind §704(a) itselfi.e., literally means, treat differently. Respondent staunchly defends interpretation, embrace, presents problems least raise correctness. Respon- dent's narrower implies persons principally designed protectvictims nation origin, relig- ionreceive addition, respondent's "makes case" small engaged treated. go creates genuine issue questions others, supervision, somewhat friendly be- cause activity. doubt meant burden courts relatively treatment. 81 775, 786- (1998). plausible favor, reads together. Under reading, "discriminat[ion]" reached §703(a)chiefly, "with privi- leges not, admittedly, most straightforward bare harmonizes permits insignificant weeded sum- mary stage, providing ample interpreted state action. Maryland, 865 Gupta Florida Re- gents, 212 571, 587 (CA11 2000), cert. denied, 531 1076 (2001); 742, 761-762 "import[ed]" test contextto define concept carried supervi- sors. "[a] constitutes status, adopt either interpreta- noted above. Part IIA opinion, criticizes sufficiently faithful Although worthy "import[ation]" now too narrow measures Ante, 8-9 (citing 2006); 1996)). misplaced. wishes job. far setting, off crimes espe- cially risky. on-the-job cited majority, illustrates. There, Fed- eral Bureau Investigation agent Bu- reau retaliated off-duty security fur- nished. 1213-1214. But, FBI whose life threatened hours, easily qualifies term, condition, privilege Certainly, policy denying agents §703(a). IIB, adopting literal alone, instead puts aside adopts third interpretationone grounding language. According "well suaded discrimination." sound test. employs unadorned "discrimi- nate," unstated premise reasoning seems §704(a)'s stop discrimination, unfounded. surely purposes conduct, suppose purpose. itself identifies another provision: individuals" assert rights. test, causes permitted long severe discrimina- tion. consequences strongly suggest intended. leads logically perverse results. reaches (in- ternal discrimination" filed,[2] account applying Specifically, degree protec- afforded victim inversely propor- tional severity original prompted dissuaded threat retaliation; costs possi- ble great outweigh bene- fits, continuation future obtaining damages past Because possibility rela- tively ployee, engage incurring hand, milder dissuaded. complain- ing, lesser benefits charge. These topsy-turvy results sense. conception unclear. "reasonable worker" dissuaded, ante, characteristics actual account. comments depend circumstances," illustration: "A children." 14. illustration average worker, putting characteristics, but, rather, shares victim. introduces three charac- teristics: age, gender, How contains loose unfamiliar causation noted, asks omitted; emphasis Especially area law complex, introduction new unclear unwelcome. hold affirm Appeals. spondenther substantially payfall definition With reassignment, specifically identified "reassignment responsibilities" Here, stated, "[i]n essence, demo- tion." 2004). "new 'dirtier,'" ibid., sole rationale prior suited some- greater seniority. virtually admis- demoted responsi- bilities away her. likewise satisfied Accordingly, although asserting type claim, met I, therefore, NOTES [1] individual, other- wise compen- sation, origin; §2000e-2(a) [2] alternative interpretationthat charge" generic charge unworkable. Without gauging initial alleged possibly compare and, thus, enough assessing leave juries hopelessly sea.

Classification Label: 1