What's a "materially adverse employment action"? This is the second part in what should be a three-part series (it's possible that we'll need four) on the proposed Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues recently published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To recap from last week, a plaintiff in a retaliation case has to prove three things:
1. She engaged in “legally protected activity,” and
2. She suffered an “adverse employment action,” and
3. There is a “causal connection” between the legally protected activity and the adverse action.
Part one, "You gotta be protected!," is here. This week, we'll talk about No. 2: "Was your employment action adverse?"
What's "adverse"?
The Supreme Court decided almost 10 years ago that "adverse employment action" was virtually anything that would deter a reasonable person in the plaintiff's shoes from engaging in protected activity.
In plain English, that means "just about anything bad," as long as it isn't really trivial.
Let's start with the obvious. You get fired. That is a "materially adverse employment action." Ditto if you are demoted, if you are denied a promotion or pay increase, if you receive formal discipline, if you are laid off or not recalled, or if you get a bad employment reference.
On the other hand, if your boss forgets to smile at you in the hallway, that's probably not "adverse" enough to count, even though it might hurt your feelings.
Nine not-so-obvious adverse actions
The EEOC's proposed guidance has some good examples of employer actions that fall between these two extremes and are still considered "materially adverse employment actions":
No. 1 - Taking it outside. Action that "has no tangible effect on employment, or even an action that takes place exclusively out of work." Your boss is sweet as sugar to you at work since you filed your EEOC charge. But at night, she comes to your house and rings your doorbell and runs away. Every night. Waking your baby and making him cry.
No. 2 - Talking smack. Badmouthing the employee in the media, or to professional colleagues. In addition to being "adverse," this might be defamatory.
No. 3 - Micromanagement, especially scrutiny of work performance or attendance. Also, surveillance.
No. 4 - Damning with faint praise. You used to get "Far Exceeds Expectations," and now you get "Exceeds." Even though an "Exceeds" rating is very good, the relatively lower rating could be an adverse action if it affects the percentage pay increase for which you're eligible, or your opportunities to be promoted.
No. 5 - Being a big jerk. "[A]busive verbal or physical behavior . . . even if it is not sufficiently 'severe or pervasive' to create a hostile work environment."
No. 6 - "Where in Zacatecas did you say you're from?" Scrutinizing an employee's immigration or visa status, or reporting the employee to ICE, or threatening deportation.
No. 7 - The mob approach. This was also settled by the Supreme Court a while ago. If the employer takes action against an employee's family member, significant other, or someone else in a close relationship to the employee, that's an "adverse action" both to the employee and to the direct victim.
No. 8 - Changing work location, or schedule, in a bad way.
No. 9 - "You'll never catch me repeating gossip, so listen close the first time." (Hat tip to Hee Haw. Or somebody.) Disclosing an employee's confidential information can be an adverse action.
FUN FACTS ABOUT ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION
*Even if the adverse action doesn't actually deter the employee involved from engaging in protected activity, it's still "materially adverse" if it would deter a hypothetical reasonable person from engaging in the activity.
*Before you employers get too discouraged, remember that the plaintiff still has to establish a connection between her protected activity and the adverse action. This is also known as "causation," and in my experience, it's where most retaliation cases break down for plaintiffs. Tune in next week, and read all about it!
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010