... the lower courts can take away.

HONORING AMERICAN WORKERS long ago lost out to grilling hamburgers as the activity of choice on Labor Day. But, for those inclined to spend some of the holiday weekend considering the state of American labor, the Supreme Court has this year offered a decision that might be cause for celebration. In June, the court issued a 9-to-0 ruling in Burlington Northern v. Sheila White. In theory, the decision will make it easier to sue in federal court for workplace``retaliation" actions taken against employees who complain they've been discriminated against.

In theory. Those who noticed the somewhat obscure ruling hailed it as a victory for workers, one especially notable for being unanimous. But while we often think of the Supreme Court as having the final word, in fact, every opinion the court issues must then be interpreted and applied by the federal courts, both the circuit courts of appeal and the district, or trial, courts.

And for decades, the Supreme Court and the other federal courts have disagreed over workplace discrimination-in particular, over how broadly to interpret Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Supreme Court has tended to interpret those words in ways that should make it relatively easy for a worker's case to get in front of a jury. But many federal judges apply these decisions narrowly, tossing out employment discrimination cases before a jury can hear them. Some opposition comes from judges who tend to favor employers over employees. Others feel they're spending too much time on such cases, which now make up 10 percent of the federal docket. Whether Burlington Northern will make it easier for those claiming retaliation to have their day in court, then, depends on how the lower federal courts, historically unfriendly to such cases, interpret the high court's decision.

NOTE: Here's the link for the rest of this article, which appeared in yesterday's Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/03/striking_back/