Case Brief of Burlington Northern V. White

Title: Case Brief of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

Class: BA467 – Employment Law

Date: 9/8/2010

Instructor:

Institution: Regis University

Case Brief of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White the litigants were Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. as the petitioner and Sheila White as the respondent. White exhausted her administrative remedies through the EEOC and subsequently filed suit in Federal Court. The suit was appealed to the Sixth Circuit court which, eventually and en banc, affirmed the findings of the District court. The Unite States Supreme Court chose to hear this case in order to resolve disparities among the Circuit courts. The Circuit courts used different measures in determining whether actionable employer behaviors must be employment related only and how damaging the behaviors must be in order to constitute retaliatory discrimination as defined in Title VII.

The Sixth Circuit took the position that a retaliation charge must include “materially adverse change in the terms and conditions” of actual employment circumstances. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits used even stricter criteria, while the Seventh and the District of Columbia Circuits employed the criteria of a reasonable employee being dissuaded from exercising their anti-discrimination rights. The Ninth Circuit used EEOC guidelines in determining actionable behavior. Because of these disparities the Supreme Court wanted to clarify and create consistency in the application of precedence for the Circuit courts to use.

The issue involved in this case was whether BNSF’s actions rose to the level of retaliatory discrimination resulting in a substantial change to White’s employment circumstances. Burlington argued that, although the motive of its supervisors was likely retaliatory, the actions did not cause White enough harm to constitute retaliatory discrimination. White...