They talk about BNSF assinging preganant women from clerical postions to track gangs when they complain about sexaul harrasment…
Well I suppose you are geting two for the price of one.
Do you have a link? I sure can’t find this on USA Today’s website.
If a client came into my office saying that she made a claim of sexual harrassment and was subsequently assigned to a track gang while pregnant, I would start shopping sports cars prior to filing suit.
I can’t believe that there is not more to the story than that.
Gabe
Check out this weekends USA Today Headline
Marough? I thought USA Today was only delivered Monday through Friday?
Supreme Court: Employer liable for retaliatory acts
Unanimous Supreme Court says that employees who retaliate against a complaining employee can be held liable for money damages.
June 22, 2006: 2:58 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A railroad worker who said she was punished on the job after complaining of sexual harassment won a unanimous victory Thursday at the Supreme Court, which upheld a jury award that held her supervisors accountable.
At issue was what standards should apply when business owners or government supervisors are accused of retaliating against workers claiming sex or race discrimination. A federal law known as Title VII prohibits employers from engaging in such retaliation.
“The anti-retaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces injury or harm,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for the other eight benchmates. “We believe that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the jury’s verdict.”
The justices expressed sympathy over claims made by Sheila White, a forklift operator hired in June 1997 on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway yard in Memphis. She had experience in that position and was the only woman in her maintenance division.
Three months into her job, White complained about sexual harassment and discrimination by her male boss, who had never supervised a woman worker before. White said her foreman and other male workers made inappropriate remarks to her, among other things. Her immediate supervisor was investigated, suspended and ordered to take sensitivity training.
But, 10 days after making her allegations, White was transferred to work as a regular track laborer, a more physically demanding job. Both jobs were in the same broad employment category, and she suffered no loss in pay or benefits.
After White complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she was suspended without pay for 37 days f
Smooth BNSF…
Um…methinks a Union (BMWE) bump may have placed in here somewhere that BNSF has little or no control over. (Machine operator to trackman is a drop in class of service) Like Gabe, I think we are not seeing the whole story.
Was the forklift job abolished? Did someone with more seniority get the forklift job?
I still don’t see how BNSF is at fault, it should be her supervisor that gets sued and fired. It’s not like it’s BNSF policy that got her moved (if it is, then yes, BNSF was the proper defendant, but it didn’t say anywhere in the story that it was).
Oh, wait, nowadays people don’t care about if any changes come about from their suit, just how much money they get out of the suit. Of course we know which of the two parties has the deep pockets[B)].
Never says anything that she was pregnent
Legal Axiom:
1.) The lawyer will always aim the harpoon first at the entity with the
deepest pockets.
2.) The employer is always responsible for on-the job behavior/
or misbehavior.
Any questions see GCOR for Lawyers: Rule 1.
Sam
company hires employees to act as there agents, it is than the employeers fault when there agents act in the wrong. I like the typical company line, well if she wins than we can never fire or otherwise go after someone, yea ok.
This was on NPR news 1 weeks ago. THought about posting it but thought someone already had and I’d get beat up.
It is worse than that in some ways.
-
If the lawyer fails to sue the deep pocket defendant and his client gets a verdict and judgment against a defendant who has insufficient resources to pay the judgment then the client may have cause to sue the lawyer for malpratice. (scary, huh). So the lawyer has no choice but to sue any deep pocket defendant that the law allows.
-
Employer responsibility for acts or omissions by employees is called the legal theory of “Respondeat Superior” and is very much alive and well in our legal system.