High court takes on job transfers in sexual harassment cases

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether an employer may be liable for financial damages if it transfers an employee who has complained of discrimination to a more difficult job.

At issue is what constitutes "materially adverse" changes in employment.

Sheila White, a railroad track worker for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway in Memphis, Tenn., was hired as a forklift operator. The only woman working at the railroad yard, White soon complained that her foreman was sexually harassing her.

When the foreman was suspended, White was transferred to work as a regular track worker. Track workers repaired track and performed more physically demanding labor.

After she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, White was fired before the Christmas holidays in 1997. The railroad eventually rescinded its decision and compensated her for back pay.

A jury hearing her lawsuit rejected the discrimination charge but found in her favor on the retaliation claim, awarding her $43,000 in punitive damages.

A divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati acknowledged conflict among other appeals courts over the proper standard for analyzing adverse employment actions.

The Equal Employment Advisory Council, a nationwide association of employers, said in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court that the 6th Circuit's decision could hamstring employers.

"Under the court's rulings, once an employee has complained of discrimination, virtually every subsequent change in that employee's assigned job duties becomes a potential basis for a retaliation claim ... even if all tasks assigned to the employee are within his or her existing job description and the employee suffers no reduction in pay or loss of status," said the group, which also represents 320 U.S. corporations.