Court Erred in FCC Workplace Retaliation Claim, Employee Says
The standard the Supreme Court laid out in its 1998 Burlington Industries v. Ellerth decision was the wrong one to apply to Sharon Stewart's workplace retaliation claim against the FCC, Stewart argued in a reply brief (in Pacer) Tuesday in…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court rejected the Ellerth standard as it applies to retaliation claims in its Burlington Northern & Santa Fe v. White decision in 2006 "and sustaining it here would fly in the face of nearly five decades of precedent," the plaintiff said, arguing the court should revise an April order (in Pacer) on the FCC's motion to dismiss so as to deny the government's motion to dismiss one of the counts of her complaint. While White made clear reassignment of job duties isn't automatically actionable, court precedent has held that whether a reassignment is adverse is for a jury to decide, not for a court ruling on a motion to dismiss, Stewart said. Stewart sued the FCC in 2015, alleging she was penalized after complaining of a hostile work environment in the Office of Communications Business Opportunities, including being moved from her job preparing Section 610 reports. The FCC didn't comment Wednesday.