|
''Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White'', 548 U.S. 53 (2006) was a United States Supreme Court case about sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims.〔http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/errj/2010/00000022/00000003/00009137〕 It set a precedent for claims which could be considered ''retaliatory'' under the Civil Rights Act.〔http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Fall2008/03Bernstein42.1%28revised%29.pdf〕〔http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol41/iss2/7/〕 ==Events leading to legal action== In June 1997, Sheila White was the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at BNSF’s Tennessee Yard. When she applied for the job at BNSF, her previous experience operating forklifts was noted by Marvin Brown, her interviewer at BNSF. White was hired as a “track laborer,” a job that involves removing and replacing track components, transporting track material, cutting brush, and clearing litter and cargo spillage from the right-of-way. Soon after White arrived on the job, she was assigned to operate the forklift. While she also performed some of the other track laborer tasks, operating the forklift was White’s primary responsibility. In September 1997, White complained to BNSF officials that her immediate supervisor, Bill Joiner, had repeatedly told her that women should not be working in the Maintenance of Way department. Joiner, White said, had also made insulting and inappropriate remarks to her in front of her male colleagues. After an internal investigation, Burlington suspended Joiner for 10 days and ordered him to attend a sexual-harassment training session. On September 26, Brown told White about Joiner’s discipline. At the same time, he told White that he was removing her from forklift duty and assigning her to perform only standard track laborer tasks. Brown explained that the reassignment reflected co-worker’s complaints that, in fairness, a “‘more senior man’” should have the “less arduous and cleaner job” of forklift operator. On October 10, White filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She claimed that the reassignment of her duties amounted to unlawful gender-based discrimination and retaliation for her having earlier complained about Joiner. In early December, White filed a second retaliation charge with the Commission, claiming that Brown had placed her under surveillance and was monitoring her daily activities. That charge was mailed to Brown on December 8. A few days later, White and her immediate supervisor, Percy Sharkey, disagreed about which truck should transport White from one location to another. Some aspects of this conversation are disputed, however later that day Sharkey told Brown that White had been insubordinate. Brown immediately suspended White without pay. White invoked internal grievance procedures. Those procedures led Burlington to conclude that White had not been insubordinate. Burlington reinstated White to her position and awarded her back pay for the 37 days she was suspended. White filed an additional retaliation charge with the EEOC based on the suspension. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|