South Carolina
How Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White applies in South Carolina: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Employment Law.
In South Carolina, the principles established in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White are utilized to evaluate retaliation claims under the South Carolina Human Affairs Law (H.A.L.). Courts tend to closely align with the federal definitions of adverse employment actions and protected activities.
To establish a retaliation claim under South Carolina law, a plaintiff must show participation in a protected activity, an adverse employment action occurred, and a causal connection between the two.
The court ruled that the termination of a teacher after reporting sexual harassment constituted retaliation as it was deemed an adverse employment action.
The court found that disqualification from unemployment benefits for reporting workplace violations equated to retaliation under H.A.L.
South Carolina's approach mirrors the federal standard by requiring evidence of an adverse employment action and a causal link between the protected activity and the employer's response. However, South Carolina courts place a strong emphasis on the specific protections outlined in state law which may expand the definition of retaliation beyond federal interpretations.
Retaliation claims under South Carolina law are frequently tested on the bar exam, particularly concerning the balance between state and federal protections.