Cite as: 548 U. S. ____ (2006) 1 Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[June 22, 2006]
delivered the opinion of the Court. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employ-ment discrimination against “any individual” based on that individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Pub. L. 88–352, §704, 78 Stat. 257, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a). A separate section of the Act—its anti-retaliation provision—forbids an employer from “discriminat[ing] against” an employee or job applicant because that individual “opposed any practice” made unlawful by Title VII or “made a charge, testified, as-sisted, or participated in” a Title VII proceeding or inves-tigation. §2000e–3(a). The Courts of Appeals have come to different conclu-sions about the scope of the Act’s anti-retaliation provi-sion, particularly the reach of its phrase “discriminate against.” Does that provision confine actionable retalia-tion to activity that affects the terms and conditions of employment? And how harmful must the adverse actions be to fall within its scope? We conclude that the anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are