Employee retaliation claims under the Supreme Court's Burlington, Crawford and Thompson decisions

Abstract

This article considers the line of Supreme Court rulings in employment cases based on claims of employer retaliation against employees who have exercised their Title VII rights. Central to this discussion are both the interpretation of the range of employer conduct considered as related back to the discrimination, as well as the development of a standard of materiality for actionable retaliation claims. The Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White ruled on these two issues following a number of inconsistent decisions among the circuit courts of appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately expanded the scope of retaliation claims and thus the protections afforded employees. The Court accomplished this through its broad interpretation of employer conduct considered actionable to include even non-work related conduct occurring offsite. Finally the Court clarified the standard for proof of retaliation claims requiring plaintiffs to prove that a reasonable employer would have found the employer conduct materially adverse such that it would dissuade a reasonable worker from pursuing charges of discrimination. Clearly this impacts employers and there is much to be done with respect to managing employment relationships along with employer conduct and actions within and beyond the workplace.