WASHINGTON (CNN) - A railroad worker who said she was punished on the job after complaining of sexual harassment won a unanimous victory Thursday at the Supreme Court, which upheld a jury award that held her supervisors accountable.

At issue was what standards should apply when business owners or government supervisors are accused of retaliating against workers claiming sex or race discrimination. A federal law known as Title VII prohibits employers from engaging in such retaliation.

Special Reportfull coverage Job openings rise, hiring still weak Over 50, and zero job offers Unemployment hits 10.2% Teens suffer record unemployment Mounting job losses

"The anti-retaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces injury or harm," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for the other eight benchmates. "We believe that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the jury's verdict."

The justices expressed sympathy over claims made by Sheila White, a forklift operator hired in June 1997 on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway yard in Memphis. She had experience in that position and was the only woman in her maintenance division.

Three months into her job, White complained about sexual harassment and discrimination by her male boss, who had never supervised a woman worker before. White said her foreman and other male workers made inappropriate remarks to her, among other things. Her immediate supervisor was investigated, suspended and ordered to take sensitivity training.

But, 10 days after making her allegations, White was transferred to work as a regular track laborer, a more physically demanding job. Both jobs were in the same broad employment category, and she suffered no loss in pay or benefits.

After White complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she was suspended without pay for 37 days for "insubordination."

A company inquiry eventually found White had not been insubordinate and she was reinstated to her original job driving a forklift, with full back pay, in January 1998.

She later sued Burlington Northern (down $0.54 to $76.85, Charts). A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict that concluded she had been unfairly transferred from her job and subjected to retaliation. Under federal rules, that constituted an "adverse employment action."

"Many reasonable employees would find a month without a paycheck to be a serious hardship," wrote Breyer. "And White described to the jury the physical and emotional hardship that 37 days of having 'no income, no money' in fact caused." He added, "An indefinite suspension without pay could well act as a deterrent [to complain], even if the suspended employee eventually received back pay."

Lawyers for the railroad had argued that White's job transfer -- from forklift operator to track worker -- caused her to suffer "no economic effect." The case was closely watched by businesses and worker-rights advocates. A variety of companies have petitioned the court to rule in their favor, fearing a "superprotected" class of workers who file or threaten discrimination claims would forever be protected from getting fired, transferred or disciplined.

Supporters of White counter that, without legal safeguards, companies would have the means and power to find limitless ways to punish those who complain about discrimination or other wrongdoing on the job.

The case is Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway v. White.

--from CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears

____________________

Related: Think your boss is bad?