More Hard Labor, Paid Suspension: What's an Adverse Action in the Context of Retaliation?
Mike Fox offers some good coverage of the recent Supreme Court argument in White v. Burlington, a Supreme Court proceeding that addresses the issue of what constitutes an adverse employment action for purposes of retaliation statutes. Many times, retaliation doesn't always result in a booming and definitive Trump-esque "You're fired!!!" White, plaintiff in the litigation, claimed that the company's retaliation for a complaint of sexual harassment consisted of being moved to another job position, in the same classification that required more physical labor and a 37 day suspension without pay for insubordination that was changed to a paid suspension. Fox excerpts some of the questions tossed out by the justices at oral argument and cites press coverage of the decision. As for Fox, this is a tough case with many implications; he predicts that the Court won't issue a ruling until close to the end of the Court's term.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on April 20, 2006 at 02:18 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Hard Labor, Paid Suspension: What's an Adverse Action in the Context of Retaliation?: