October Term 2005 · Docket 05-259
Does a Title VII retaliation claim require tangible economic harm?
Burlington Northern argues that minor workplace reassignments do not constitute actionable retaliation. White contends that such actions violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Phillips argued that the jury instructions did not apply the correct legal standard for retaliation.
Mr. Donati argued that reassigning and suspending White without pay constituted discrimination.
Justice Breyer asked if excluding a woman from a key meeting could harm her career and count as a violation.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case centers on whether federal law protects employees from non-economic workplace mistreatment after filing discrimination charges. The dispute involves the scope of retaliation claims under Title VII.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-35
What each side wants
Burlington Northern wants the Court to limit retaliation claims to tangible economic losses.
White wants the Court to recognize non-economic workplace mistreatment as actionable retaliation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
What each side says
Burlington Northern argues that minor reassignments and suspensions do not meet the legal threshold for retaliation.
White argues that excluding an employee from work activities after a charge constitutes illegal retaliation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if excluding an employee from a specific role for a year counts as retaliation.
Justice Ginsburg asked if excluding an employee from a weekly lunch meeting constitutes retaliation under the current definition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-47
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of federal protections for employees who report discrimination. It determines whether employers can impose non-economic penalties without legal consequence. This standard affects workplace conduct and employee rights nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.