Broadening the Definition of Unlawful Retaliation Under Title VII |
| |
Authors: | James M. Owens Glenn M. Gomes James F. Morgan |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Management, College of Business, California State University, Chico, 400 West First Street, Chico, CA 95929-0031, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Title VII retaliation cases have become a larger part of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) caseload, and this development should be a growing concern for business. By addressing the question of exactly when a prohibited retaliatory action has been taken against an employee, the United States Supreme Court’s June 2006 decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Sheila White ended a significant disagreement among the various appellate courts on the issue. The Supreme Court answered two specific questions regarding retaliation for raising a claim of sexual discrimination. First, the Court decided that the retaliatory conduct need not take place within the employment setting; and, second, it held that a materially adverse action requires only that a reasonable employee would be deterred from making, filing, or supporting a claim of workplace discrimination to the EEOC, the courts, or the employer. Employers need to revise and update their internal policies and procedures to ensure that their firms comply with these new standards. |
| |
Keywords: | adverse action retaliation discrimination Title VII |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|