Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry.

White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

June 11, 2003, Argued ; April 14, 2004, Decided ; April 14, 2004, Filed

Nos. 00-6780

Opinion

 [*791]  [***2]   GIBBONS, J., announced the judgment and majority opinion of the en banc court on all issues. The entire en banc court joined Parts I (Background) and III (Attorney's Fees) of the majority opinion. Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority [**2]  opinion was joined by BOGGS, C. J., and KRUPANSKY, BATCHELDER, GILMAN, ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, JJ., and Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GILMAN, and COOK, JJ. CLAY, J. (pp. 36-51), filed a separate concurring opinion joining Parts I, III, and IV of the majority opinion and writing separately as to Parts II and V, in which he was joined by MARTIN, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and COLE, JJ. SUTTON, J. (pp. 52-85), filed an opinion concurring in Parts I - III and dissenting from Parts  [***3]  IV and V, in which he was joined by BOGGS, C. J., and KRUPANSKY, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, JJ.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, the en banc court addresses the meaning of "adverse employment action" for purposes of Title VII. We decide that a thirty-seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. We also address several other issues raised by this appeal.

Sheila White brought this action against her employer, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company (Burlington Northern), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation [**3]  of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e-3. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Burlington Northern on the sex discrimination claim and in favor of White on the retaliation claim. The jury awarded White compensatory damages but no punitive damages. After the trial, the district court denied Burlington Northern's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the retaliation claim and granted White's motion for attorney's fees.

Burlington Northern appeals from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law and from the award of attorney's fees to White. White cross-appeals, challenging the district court's jury instruction regarding punitive damages. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's denial of Burlington Northern's motion for judgment as a matter of law and the district court's award of attorney's fees to White. We conclude, however, that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of punitive damages, and therefore we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  [***4] 

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

364 F.3d 789 *; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7191 **; 2004 FED App. 0102P (6th Cir.) ***; 93 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1011; 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,633

SHEILA WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Subsequent History: Counel Corrected April 21, 2004.

US Supreme Court certiorari granted by, in part Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 546 U.S. 1060, 126 S. Ct. 797, 163 L. Ed. 2d 626, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 9047 (U.S., 2005)

Affirmed by Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4895 (U.S., 2006)

Prior History:  [**1]  ; 01-5024 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis. No. 99-02733. Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.

White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22798 (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 15, 2000)

Disposition: Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

CORE TERMS

punitive damages, clear and convincing evidence, adverse employment action, preponderance of evidence, burden of proof, claim for punitive damages, cases, retaliation, district court, forklift, award of punitive damages, courts, deter, discriminate, rights, employment decision, employment action, standard of proof, suspension, purposes, convincing standard, attorney's fees, anti-retaliation, suspended, exemplary damages, trivial, malice, convincing, employees, tangible

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, General Overview, Summary Judgment, Appellate Review, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Retaliation, Title VII Discrimination, Actionable Discrimination, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Business & Corporate Law, Corporations, Corporate Governance, Corporate Existence, Powers & Purpose, Powers, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Regulators, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Rights Law, Procedural Matters, Costs & Attorney Fees, Appellate Review, Remedies, Costs & Attorney Fees, Abuse of Discretion, Judicial Discretion, Statutory Attorney Fee Awards, Attorney Fees & Expenses, Basis of Recovery, Statutory Awards, Degree of Success, Reasonable Fees, Damages, Punitive Damages, Amendments, Contractual Relations & Housing, Equal Rights Under the Law (sec. 1981), Proof of Discrimination, Remedies, Evidence, Disability Discrimination, International Trade Law, Dispute Resolution, International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration, Compensatory Damages