Total Articles: 10
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is not an "adverse employment action" for purposes of federal anti-discrimination laws.
In order to support a claim of employment discrimination, an individual typically must show that an “adverse employment action” was taken, and that such action was based upon a protected characteristic. To constitute an adverse employment action for purposes for federal anti-discrimination laws, such action must create a significant change in an employee’s status, and includes firing, failure to promote, reassignment with significantly changed job responsibilities, or a significant change in other employee benefits.
First Circuit holds that Title VII does not protect employees from the "ordinary slings and arrows that suffuse the workplace every day."
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminds us that while Congress antidiscrimination laws are designed to protect workers rights, they are not intended to function as a collective panacea for every work-related experience that is in some respect unjust, unfair, or unpleasant. Consistent with this statement, the court dismissed the claims of four female radiology technicians who complained that their supervisors abrasive behavior and its resulting nerve-wracking work environment caused each of them to leave her employment at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital
Nurse's Blacklisting Claim Rejected (pdf).
Court finds former supervisor's statements were not "adverse".
How Do You Define Adverse Employment Action? (pdf).
An issue of debate among the federal
appellate courts will apparently be
resolved in the near future as a result of
the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to
hear a case brought by a female railroad
worker who claims that she was
retaliated against for complaining
about unlawful harassment. The question
is what constitutes an adverse
employment action which has resulted
in three very different answers
from the federal appellate courts in the
past. The Justices are expected to resolve
this issue in the next few months.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Company v. White, No. 05-259,
U.S. Supreme Court (cert. granted December
5, 2005).
D.C. worker allowed to sue for harassment (pdf).
The District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals recently reinstated a
lawsuit brought by an employee who
claimed that she had been subjected to
a hostile work environment. The court
held that the trial judge erred in
granting summary judgment based on
the Faragher/Ellerth defense in a case
in which the defense had not been
raised in the pleadings. The court refused
to reinstate the workers retaliation
claim, however, because she failed
to establish that she had suffered
an adverse employment action following
her complaints of harassment.
Federal Employee's Title VII Claim Fails (pdf).
The District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals recently dismissed a
lawsuit brought by an employee who
claimed that she was terminated in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act. According to the court, the employers
decision to fire the worker
based on her inability to obtain security
clearance was immune from judicial
review.
Decrease in hours is not an "adverse action" (pdf).
The federal appellate court with jurisdiction
over Missouri employers recently
held that an employer did not
engage in unlawful discrimination by
reducing an employees hours. According
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
a minor decrease in an employees
hours does not constitute an adverse
employment action.
Probation Officer May Bring Race Bias Claim Over Wage Issue (pdf).
The federal appellate court with jurisdiction
in Alabama recently held
that an employers decision not to give
an employee a five percent raise may
constitute an adverse employment
action under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.
Ninth Circuit Finds No Adverse Employment Action, Hence No Prima Facie Case Of Discrimination, Based on Written Warning or Transfer.
The court found none of these events constituted an adverse employment action.
A Job Reassignment 100 Miles Away Is Not An Adverse Job Action.
Under a ruling by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, a sales representative who was reassigned to work exclusively in an area 80 to 100 miles from her home failed to show that she sustained "an adverse employment action" to support her claims of sex and age discrimination.
