Pennsylvania
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White applies in Pennsylvania: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
Pennsylvania courts recognize the federal standard set by Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White regarding retaliation claims under Title VII. The courts examine whether a reasonable employee would find the retaliatory action materially adverse, focusing on the context of the employer's actions and the employee's situation.
In Pennsylvania, a retaliation claim under Title VII requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that they engaged in a protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and that a causal link exists between the two.
The court held that a supervisor's negative evaluation constituted an adverse employment action because it could deter a reasonable employee from reporting discrimination.
The court found that the failure to promote the employee after reporting sexual harassment was an actionable adverse employment decision under the principles established in Burlington Northern.
The court ruled that retaliatory transfer to a less favorable position met the standard for adverse employment action, reinforcing the criteria applied in Burlington Northern.
Pennsylvania's approach aligns closely with the federal standard established in Burlington Northern, emphasizing the same criteria for determining material adversity. However, Pennsylvania courts have occasionally expanded the interpretation of what constitutes adverse employment actions, reflecting a slightly broader scope than some federal courts.
Understanding the applicability of Burlington Northern in Pennsylvania is essential for the bar exam, particularly in questions concerning retaliation under employment law.