BIG Win for Employees at Supreme Court
How rightwing is the Bush administration when it argues to screw workers on behalf of corporate American-- and even Scalia and his rightwing brethren reject its position?
In a sea of worsening legal doctrine on discrimination, the Supreme Court just handed down a decision, by a 9-0 vote, that clearly protects employees who demand that their employers end discrimination in the workplace from any kind of retaliation. Before this decision, there had been debate in the courts whether minor forms of discipline for filing discrimination charges made companies liable for fines and punishment under US discrimination law. But in this case:
The decision upheld a finding of retaliation by a railroad company against a female maintenance worker who was transferred to less desirable duties within her job category and placed on an unpaid leave for 37 days after she complained about sexual harassment. She was reinstated with back pay after a grievance by her union.. A jury awarded $43,500 to the woman...The Supreme Court upheld that fine, which means that companies can't steal pay from workers, intimidate them, then just give the money they stole back when called to account. Now they can expect more serious penalties for violating the law, which will hopefully more employees to stand up and demand decent treatment.
As the article linked to argues:
Retaliation claims make up an important and rapidly growing part of employment law. Some 20,000 retaliation cases were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2004, a number that has doubled since 1992. The cases now account for more than one-quarter of the federal agency's docket.So this is a decision worth celebrating."This is an exceptionally important decision that changes the law in most of the country," Eric Schnapper, a law professor at the University of Washington who helped represent the plaintiff in the case, said in an interview
I should say that while the decision is officially 9-0, on some parts of the decision, it was 8-1 with Alito taking a more rightwing position of limiting what would count as retaliation, limiting it to economic losses by plaintiffs and giving employers a free ride to punish employees in all sorts of non-economic ways. So Alito may be making his bid to become the wingnut holding up the right pole of the Court.
This was a good win, and should be celebrated, but the devil will be in the details. The one thing Alito was right about here was that the test approved by the Court -- whether a reasonable person would consider an action sufficiently adverse to make a difference in whether they would file the discrimination claim -- is pretty vague, and the courts are likely to reach widely varying outcomes under it. And the actual result here doesn't help much, because even the Sixth Circuit, which had a pretty high standard already, agreed that White had suffered an adverse action. The federal courts, particularly given the increasing number of Bush appointees, have never been terribly Title VII-friendly, so it remains to be seen whether this actually ends up being a substantive change in the law.
June 23, 2006 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The EEOC is also germaine to this issue. Most people who are fired in retaliation can't afford a lawyer; lawyers will take cases on contingency when there's a pot of gold involved (as opposed to corrective action remedy); EEOC will reject your case on superficial grounds if they are stressed by caseloads and lack of staff.
The voice of experience speaking here. ;-)
Neoboho
June 23, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How rightwing is the Bush administration when it argues to screw workers on behalf of corporate American-- and even Scalia and his rightwing brethren reject its position?
This was a civil trial, not a criminal one.
SCOTUS could have rejected hearing it or voted the other way, however.
UPDATE: Unless you know of filings with the court that the Adminstration supported one side or the other?
In case it's not clear my point isn't that Bush is one the side of the angels. It's that blaming Bush for a Railway company's decision to go a Court too far is fodder for wingnuts to point and shout.
June 23, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The administration did intervene as amicus curiae on the side of the railroad. The Court did not ask for the Solicitor General's opinion (as the Court sometimes does). And the SG asked for, and was granted, permission to argue before the Court.
Here's a section of the opinion (the "Petitioner" was the railroad):
Petitioner and the Solicitor General both argue that the Sixth Circuit is correct to require a link between the challenged retaliatory action and the terms, conditions, or status of employment. They note that Title VII’s substantive anti-discrimination provision protects an individual only from employment-related discrimination. They add that the anti-retaliation provision should be read in pari materia with the anti-discrimination provision. And they conclude that the employer actions prohibited by the anti-retaliation provision should similarly be limited to conduct that “affects the employee’s ‘compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13 (quoting §2000e–2(a)(1)); see Brief for Petitioner 13 (same).
This was completely the Bush Administration's choice to intervene and take this position, and it was rejected by the Court, 8-1.
June 23, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good decision, but it seems hard to see how even a packed court could have decided differently on the main issue. Any kind of decision that rendered lawful prohibited actions that weren't permanently successful at damaging their target would be way too attractive for citation by lawyers and courts that didn't understand it was only intended to apply to cases where companies attempt to screw over their employees.
And, as others have pointed out, we'll have to see how it fares in the face of hostile jurists and regulators.
June 26, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink