Wow. Just...Wow.
And now for a bit of good news: the United States Supreme Court has issued a decision in an employment law case that actually broadens protections for employees. The case, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, is discussed in today's NY Times.
The Supreme Court substantially enhanced legal protection against retaliation for employees who complain about discrimination or harassment on the job, in a ruling on Thursday.
The 9-to-0 decision adopted a broadly worded and employee-friendly definition of the type of retaliation that is prohibited by the basic federal law against discrimination in employment.
... under the standard the justices adopted on Thursday in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, any "materially adverse" employment action that "might have dissuaded a reasonable worker" from complaining about discrimination will count as prohibited retaliation. Depending on the context, retaliation might be found in an unfavorable annual evaluation, an unwelcome schedule change, or other action well short of losing a job.
Remarkably, this broad new standard of what counts as prohibited retaliation was adopted by all nine justices. The unanimity of the holding is a refreshing change from the 5-4 decisions which I had begun to think was how the Court would operate for the next ten years.
The full text of the opinion is located here. The basis for the holding is pretty clear cut:
The anti-discrimination provision seeks a workplace where individuals are not discriminated against because of their status, while the anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee's efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act's basic guarantees.
Nicely done, Justice Breyer.
And score one for the workers.
The Supreme Court substantially enhanced legal protection against retaliation for employees who complain about discrimination or harassment on the job, in a ruling on Thursday.
The 9-to-0 decision adopted a broadly worded and employee-friendly definition of the type of retaliation that is prohibited by the basic federal law against discrimination in employment.
... under the standard the justices adopted on Thursday in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, any "materially adverse" employment action that "might have dissuaded a reasonable worker" from complaining about discrimination will count as prohibited retaliation. Depending on the context, retaliation might be found in an unfavorable annual evaluation, an unwelcome schedule change, or other action well short of losing a job.
Remarkably, this broad new standard of what counts as prohibited retaliation was adopted by all nine justices. The unanimity of the holding is a refreshing change from the 5-4 decisions which I had begun to think was how the Court would operate for the next ten years.
The full text of the opinion is located here. The basis for the holding is pretty clear cut:
The anti-discrimination provision seeks a workplace where individuals are not discriminated against because of their status, while the anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee's efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act's basic guarantees.
Nicely done, Justice Breyer.
And score one for the workers.
posted by Diane at 3:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home