This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerned whether Burlington Northern’s removal of Ms. White without pay constituted retaliation under Title VII, and the Court held there was no basis for her suspension and ordered reinstatement with full back pay.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked whether Section 704 lacks the employment language present in Section 703.
Justice Breyer asked why Congress is concerned that people will not complain.
Justice Scalia asked whether a supervisor’s changed behavior toward an employee who filed a complaint could be considered retaliation.
Justice Scalia asked what criterion should stop minor actions, like not saying good morning, from being deemed retaliatory.
Justice Alito asked what the term “material” means.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company)
According to Carter G. Phillips (Petitioner), according to Carter G. Phillips (Petitioner), retaliation claims under Title VII Section 704 have more than doubled in the past decade and now comprise over 30% of the EEOC docket.
According to Carter G. Phillips, the jury was not instructed under the Ellerth standard; a variant of that standard was not upheld by the court of appeals.
According to Carter G. Phillips, the rise in retaliation claims is linked to the Ellerth standard and employer policies that, when enforced, can lead to retaliation against complainants like Ms. White.
Respondent (Sheila White)
According to Respondent (Donald A. Donati), according to Respondent (Donald A. Donati), Burlington Northern reassigned Ms. White and removed her without pay for 37 days during Christmas, which constitutes discrimination under EEOC, plain‑language, and Sixth Circuit standards.
According to Mr. Donati, a measure that deters an individual from filing a charge is unfavorable to the plaintiff under the EEOC standard.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 11:04 a.m.
The oral argument was presented by Gregory G. Garre.
The case was submitted after argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Carter G. Phillips (Petitioner), the case concerns retaliation claims under Title VII, an area that has seen a significant increase in filings, now comprising over 30% of the EEOC docket.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- c45d693ecfb974ac088d-r1-3eac5e32b531afcc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.