Analyze the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White case and discu

Question

Analyze the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White case and discuss whether you agree or disagree with the Court’s ruling, and why? What employment rights are being protected here?
This case arises out of actions that supervisors at peti-tioner Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company took against respondent Sheila White, the only woman working in the Maintenance of Way department at Bur- lington's Tennessee Yard. In June 1997 Burlington's roadmaster, Marvin Brown, interviewed White and ex- pressed interest in her previous experience operating forklifts. Burlington hired White as a "track laborer," a job that involves removing and replacing track compo- nents, transporting track material, cutting brush, and clearing litter and cargo spillage from the right-of-way. Soon after White arrived on the job, a co-worker who had previously operated the forklift chose to assume other responsibilities. Brown immediately assigned White to operate the forklift. While she also performed some of the other track laborer tasks, operating the forklift was White's primary In September 1997. White complained to Burlington officials that her immediate supervisor Bill Joiner, had repeatedly told her that women should not be working in the Maintenance of Way department. Joiner, White said, had also made insulting and inappropriate remarks to her in front of her male colleagues. After an internal investi- gation, Burlington suspended Joiner for 10 days and ordered him to attend a sexual-harassment training ses- sion. On September 26, Brown told White about Joiner's discipline. At the same time, he told White that he was removing her from forklift duty and assigning her to per-form only standard track laborer tasks. Brown explained that the reassignment reflected co-worker's complaints that, in fairness, a more senior man should have the less arduous and cleaner job" of forklift operator. 364 F. 3d 789, 792 (CA6 2004) (case below) On October 10, White filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commis- sion). She claimed that the reassignment of her duties amounted to unlawful gender-based discrimination and retaliation for her having earlier complained about Joiner. In early December, White filed a second retaliation charge with the Commission, claiming that Brown had placed her under surveillance and was monitoring A few days later, White and her immediate supervisor, Percy Sharkey, disagreed about which truck should trans-port White from one location to another. The specific facts of the disagreement are in dispute, but the upshot is that Sharkey told Brown later that afternoon that White had been insubordinate. Brown immediately suspended White without pay. White invoked internal grievance proce- dures. Those procedures led Burlington to conclude that White had not been insubordinate. Burlington reinstated White to her position and awarded her backpay for the 37 days she was suspended. White filed an additional re- taliation charge with the EEOC based on the suspension.

Explanation / Answer

I totally agree with the court's ruling that White had been unfairly discriminated against on grounds of gender. Under the law,discrimination regardless of the method is unlawful and thus awarding White damages was legally founded. Here the White is being protected against gender discrimination and adverse employment actions

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.