In Part One I speak with Nancy Schess, Labor and Employment Partner with Klein, Zelman, Rothermel & Dichter. She and I discussed the recent US Supreme Court ruling of Burlington Northern, Sante Fe Railway Co. vs. White which expanded the definition of "retaliation" in workplace sexual harassment claims. In Part Two (17:50), Nancy and I discuss the actions that organizations need to take to protect themselves in light of this new ruling. (12:40 minutes)
The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 22, 2006, in a unanimous ruling, said that retaliation for filing a complaint of harassment can include actions that create a "materially adverse" impact on the employee, even if it does not include a loss of a job or wages. "Materially adverse" can mean any action that would discourage a "reasonable worker" from raising an isssue of possible harassment.
One implication in this ruling is that if the resolution of a complaint means moving an employee to a different job or department, it must be a lateral move. Not to a job or position that is vastly harder or more difficult than the one he/she is leaving.
Talk to you soon, Tim.
Comments