1998) ("badmouthing" of employee) Nidds v. 1999) (refusing to hold job open beyond period dictated by company’s leave policy), amended by 201 F.3d 1211 Nunez v. 2000) (ostracizing by co-workers) McAlindin v. 2002) (giving "mediocre" performance evaluation not made available to other potential employers and unaccompanied by any meaningful change in work assignments) Brooks v. Other conduct, however, may not constitute an adverse employment action. 1983) (discussing four-month disciplinary suspension). 1986) (discussing failure to hire) E.E.O.C. 1987) (considering transfer of job duties and “undeserved” performance ratings) Ruggles v. 1997) (considering negative job reference) Miller v. 2000) (considering low rating on job performance review, decreased job responsibilities, and failure to receive promotions) Hashimoto v. 2002) (considering cut in monthly base salary) Passantino v. 2003) (discussing denial of transfer) Little v. 2013) (en banc) (considering employee’s placement on administrative leave, deprivation of ability to take promotional exam, and loss of pay and opportunities for investigative or other job experience) Manatt v. § 1983, concluding statement that employee would “need to have union rep” if he persisted in engaging in speech on matter of public concern made as private citizen) Dahlia v. Evergreen School District, 56 F.4th 767, 774 (9th Cir. Supervisors are responsible for setting clear rules and management. Īdverse employment actions take many forms. It can take the form of a written reprimand, suspension without pay, or adverse action. These actions may dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. In addition, other actions that do not rise to the level of ultimate employment actions, such as a lateral transfer, an unfavorable reference that had no effect on a prospective employer’s hiring decision, and the imposition of a more burdensome work schedule, may also be considered adverse employment actions in this context. This definition introduces the objective standard of a "reasonable employee" but includes the concept of "materially adverse."Īctions such as firing and demoting are adverse employment actions for purposes of a retaliation claim. 53, 68 (2006), the Supreme Court settled the definition of what is an adverse employment action in the retaliation context. In Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. 10.10 Civil Rights-Title VII-"Adverse Employment Action" in Retaliation CasesĪn action is an adverse employment action if a reasonable employee would have found the action materially adverse, which means it might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
0 kommentar(er)
