Statements (57)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
November 30, 2006
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Set important implications for workplace rights.
Whether the employee was subjected to retaliation. |
| gptkbp:case_legal_interpretation |
The Court interpreted the law in favor of employee protections.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_standard |
The Court established a new legal standard for retaliation.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:Burlington_Northern_&_Santa_Fe_Railway_Co._v._White
No. 05-259. The case was appealed from the Sixth Circuit. Involved a female employee's complaint of retaliation. The case involved a claim of retaliation under Title VII. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Reversed lower court's ruling.
In favor of the employee. The Court found in favor of the employee. The employee's claim was upheld. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Important for civil rights and employment law.
Significant for understanding employee rights. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil Rights case.
Arguments focused on the interpretation of retaliation. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
The ruling impacted future employment law cases.
|
| gptkbp:court |
Highest court in the United States.
|
| gptkbp:date |
November 30, 2006.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
January 24, 2007 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito
Justice Alito dissented. |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
January 24, 2007.
|
| gptkbp:election |
8-0.
|
| gptkbp:held_in |
The Court held that the standard for proving retaliation under Title VII is broader than previously understood.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
560 U. S. 746
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced employment discrimination law.
Influenced how courts interpret retaliation under Title VII. |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:560_U._S._746
560 U. S. 746 (2010). |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
The judgment was unanimous.
|
| gptkbp:judges |
All justices participated in the decision.
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
The case was subject to judicial review.
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
United States federal law.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Employment law.
The case was rooted in employment discrimination law. |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
The case contributed to the legal framework of Title VII.
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Title_VII_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
The ruling favored the interpretation of broader protections.
Established a more employee-friendly standard for retaliation. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Retaliation claims must be evaluated based on a broader standard.
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
The Court analyzed the intent and effect of retaliatory actions.
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Clarified the scope of retaliation claims under Title VII.
Set a precedent for future retaliation cases. The case serves as a legal precedent for future cases. |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion. |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Crawford_v._Metro._Gov't_of_Nashville_and_Davidson_County,_Tennessee
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Significant for understanding employee protections against retaliation.
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:2010
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|