## Facts

- Sheila White was hired by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) in 1997 as a track laborer in a Tennessee rail yard.
- White was assigned to operate a forklift as her primary duty, though she also performed track labor tasks.
- White complained to BNSF that her supervisor made repeated derogatory remarks about women working in the department.
- BNSF disciplined the supervisor; the same day, White was removed from forklift duty and reassigned to standard track laborer tasks.
- White filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination and retaliation.
- After a later workplace dispute, BNSF suspended White without pay for insubordination for 37 days.
- BNSF ultimately reinstated White, concluded she was not insubordinate, and awarded backpay, but White filed an additional EEOC retaliation charge.
- White sued under Title VII; a jury rejected her sex discrimination claim but found retaliation and awarded compensatory damages.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, treating retaliation as requiring a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment; BNSF sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is limited to employer actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment or are workplace-related.
2. What level of harm an employer action must impose to qualify as actionable retaliation under Title VII.
3. Whether White’s reassignment and 37-day unpaid suspension satisfied the governing retaliation standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, in an opinion by Justice Breyer.
- Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is not confined to actions that are employment-related or that occur at the workplace.
- Actionable retaliation requires a showing of material adversity: the challenged action must be harmful enough that it could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge.
- White’s reassignment from forklift duty to standard track labor tasks and her 37-day unpaid suspension met the materially adverse standard, notwithstanding later reinstatement and backpay.
- Justice Alito concurred in the judgment, agreeing that White had an actionable claim while questioning the majority’s formulation.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision reaches a broader range of employer conduct than Title VII’s substantive anti-discrimination provision because the provisions use different language and serve different functions.
- Retaliation is actionable if it is materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant, meaning it could well deter protected activity.
- Trivial harms, petty slights, and minor workplace annoyances are not actionable; materiality is required to separate significant deterrents from ordinary friction.
- The material-adversity inquiry is objective and context-dependent; the same act may be material in one setting and immaterial in another.
- Corrective measures such as later backpay do not necessarily negate material adversity when the employee is subjected to substantial interim hardship or deterrent pressure.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII prohibits employer retaliation that could deter a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity, even when the employer’s conduct does not alter formal job status or occur at the workplace, and it sustained liability based on White’s reassignment to more burdensome duties and her unpaid suspension.


Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)