Sex Bias Award Affirmed (by SCOTUS)

[Rose Siding]

The Supreme Court made it easier today for workers in most parts of the country to sue employers for retaliating against them when they complain about sexual harassment. The court said that employees may collect even if the punishment did not involve getting fired or losing wages.

The court ruled unanimously that Burlington Northern Railroad violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it reacted to Sheila White's charges of gender discrimination by transferring her to a more arduous job and suspending her for 37 days, even though it later reinstated her and gave her back pay.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court that, under the circumstances, the railroad's actions would have been enough to deter a reasonable employee from making a charge in the first place. This, he wrote, is the proper standard for evaluating a claim of illegal retaliation.

"Interpreting the anti-retaliation provision to provide broad protection from retaliation helps assure the cooperation upon which accomplishment of the Act's primary objective depends," Breyer wrote.

........Breyer's opinion was endorsed by a broad liberal-conservative majority on the court, with only Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing to say that he would have reached the same result based on a different interpretation of the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062200645.html

But Alito's in the mainstream :eyes:

[ThomCat]

1. Alito's a legal cancer.

He is a disease spreading his influence throughout an already sick legal system.
:grr:

[Cocoa]

2. the decision was unanimous

not clear at all from the above article, which oddly suggests Alito dissented, which he didn't.

But the article below includes that basic part of the story:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0623/p25s03-usju.html

In a unanimous decision announced Thursday, the high court established a relatively broad standard empowering employees to take their supervisors to court if they retaliate after the worker has complained about illegal discrimination.

[tritsofme]

3. Sounds like Alito wrote a concurring opinion.

nt

[Rose Siding]

6. That's right.

It also says:

"...he would have reached the same result based on a different interpretation of the law".

[donsu]

4. so sexual abuse is ok with the supremes - so is vote rigging

the supremes are sullied

[drm604]

5. How does this imply that sexaul abuse is okay with the court?

It seems to say just the opposite.

[LostinVA]

7. ??? The decision says the opposite n/t