Washington ? The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for workers to show they suffered retaliation after accusing employers of discrimination.

By a 9-0 vote, the justices said that Sheila White, a railroad forklift operator, was improperly punished when her employer suspended her for 37 days and reassigned her to more physically demanding duties as a yard worker. She had accused a supervisor of sexual harassment.

The ruling significantly eases the legal standard for showing retaliation and could lead to more litigation against companies.

“It’s a slam dunk,” said Eric Schnapper, a University of Washington law professor who represents White.

Under the court’s new standard, the justices defined retaliation as any action taken by an employer that would intimidate “a reasonable employee” into backing off from a discrimination complaint.

White was the only woman working in the rail yard for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway in Memphis, Tenn., when she was hired because of her experience operating a forklift.

A company investigation of White’s sexual harassment allegations led to a foreman’s suspension and enrollment in sensitivity classes. But the railroad simultaneously transferred White to work as a regular track worker, a more physically demanding job.

The railroad eventually cleared White of insubordination charges that also were lodged against her.

A jury rejected the sex discrimination charge but found in her favor on the retaliation claim, awarding her $43,000.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that even though White did receive back pay, she and her family had to live 37 days without any income, not knowing when or if she would return to work.

“Many reasonable employees would find a month without a paycheck to be a serious hardship,” Breyer wrote, adding that “an indefinite suspension without pay could well act as a deterrent, even if the suspended employee eventually received back pay.”