California
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White applies in California: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
California generally aligns with the principles established in Burlington Northern regarding retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, particularly in regard to the standard of what constitutes an adverse employment action. The state's courts assess whether the actions taken against employees would deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.
In California, the rule derived from Burlington Northern applies to determine whether an employer's actions against an employee amount to retaliation, requiring a showing that the actions were materially adverse and would dissuade a reasonable worker from making a claim.
The court held that employer's actions must be viewed through the lens of whether they would deter a reasonable employee from reporting discriminatory practices.
The decision emphasized that retaliation must be assessed in totality of circumstances to determine if the actions are materially adverse.
This case underscored that not only must the action be adverse, but it should also be considered in the context of the employee's protected activities.
California's standards for determining retaliation largely mirror the federal standard set forth in Burlington Northern, focusing on the materiality of the adverse action. However, California courts may be more expansive in interpreting what constitutes adverse action by considering the broader work environment and its impact on the employee.
This principle is relevant for both civil procedure and constitutional law sections of the California bar exam, particularly in employment law contexts regarding retaliation claims.