42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

A change to a teacher’s curriculum does not support a Title VII discrimination claim without allegations that it affected employment conditions.

Soto v. Marist College · filed 2019-06-05(a)(1)

Any potential claim based on changes made to Plaintiff’s syllabus and curriculum therefore fails, absent additional facts detailing how the changes impacted the conditions of his employment.

For a disparate treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), nonselection for a position, disciplinary write-ups and a performance improvement plan, and nonrenewal of a contract can be adverse employment actions.

Lucas v. Tempe Union High School District · filed 2019-07-15(a)(1)

“The Court agrees that each of the actions constituted an adverse employment action under Title VII.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action, including at summary judgment.

Chambers v. Office of the Attorney General · filed 2019-07-24(a)(1)

However, while an employee need not establish a prima facie of discrimination or retaliation at the summary judgment stage, she must still, at a minimum, demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action.

A Title VII sex discrimination claim requires an adverse employment action, including at summary judgment.

Chambers v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2019-07-24(a)(1)

However, while an employee need not establish a prima facie of discrimination or retaliation at the summary judgment stage, she must still, at a minimum, demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action.

A race-based reassignment can alter the terms and conditions of employment even when it is brief and causes no change in pay.

Williams v. Beaumont Health · filed 2019-08-26(a)(1)

Finally, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits, in pertinent part, race discrimination in employment. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... This reassignment—if based on Williams’ race—constitutes an impermissible alteration of her responsibilities and the terms and conditions of her employment that is more than temporary or de minimis.

A drug test performed under an established company policy is not an adverse employment action for a Title VII discrimination claim; termination is.

LIGGINS v. G.A. & F.C. WAGMAN, INC. · filed 2019-08-27(a)(1)

Accordingly, it is Liggins’s termination and not his drug test that constitutes an adverse employment action and frames the issue of different treatment.

Section 2000e-2 requires an adverse employment action for a disparate treatment claim; work assignments that do not affect a term, condition, or benefit of employment do not suffice.

Ford v. Collington Life Care · filed 2019-09-03(a)(1)

Nor does the Complaint describe any way in which Ford’s work assignments affected a term, condition, or benefit of her employment. Ford’s disparate treatment claim fails to plead that Ford experienced an adverse employment action to support a Title VII claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a discrimination claim based on constructive discharge when a reasonable person could feel compelled to resign because of the working conditions.

McNamara v. Susquehanna County · filed 2019-09-17(a)

As part of her prima facie case for discrimination, McNamara must show that she suffered an adverse employment decision when she resigned from deputy chief clerk on June 21, 2016. ... All this conduct falls squarely among the factors enumerated in Clowes and should be evaluated by the trier of fact.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a cognizable adverse employment action for a racial disparate treatment claim.

Short v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-24(a)(1)

But, as noted, plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable adverse employment action.

A suspension can qualify as an adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Brown v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2019-09-29(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s suspension also qualifies as an adverse action for purposes of Title VII.

A reassignment with significantly different responsibilities can be an adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Kennedy v. Regents of the University of Coloardo · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

These allegations support a finding that plaintiff was reassigned to a role with “significantly different responsibilities.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a disparate-treatment claim based on denial of overtime because lost overtime can affect compensation.

Conner v. The Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois · filed 2019-10-15(a)(1)

For the reasons stated above, it is plausible that the university denying Conner overtime was an adverse employment action (within the limitations period). Even in the discrimination context, where the plaintiff’s burden is heavier, denial of overtime can affect a plaintiff’s compensation. ... Conner’s disparate-treatment claim based on the denial of overtime survives the university’s motion to dismiss.

A Title VII sex discrimination claim based on different hiring test standards requires an allegation that those standards caused an adverse employment action.

Sroga v. City of Chicago · filed 2019-10-16(a)(1)

The City correctly points out, however, that nowhere in his complaint does Sroga allege that he suffered an adverse employment action, i.e. that he was passed over for hire in favor of a female candidate, as a result of these differing standards. Sroga has therefore failed to state a claim under either Title VII or § 1983 and Count IV is dismissed.

Unpaid suspensions are adverse employment actions under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Metivier v. Haaland · filed 2019-10-31(a)(1)

In addition, Metivier’s three-day suspension imposed in March 2013 and her five-day suspension imposed in September 2013 were both served without pay, and therefore constitute adverse employment actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats a denied promotion and the removal of a police officer’s gun and badge as adverse employment actions.

Bonilla v. City Of New York · filed 2019-11-15(a)(1)

Certain of Bonilla’s allegations — including: (i) the denial of his promotion to sergeant; (ii) the demands made of him while on detail at Yankee Stadium; (iii) the actions taken against him during the July 2017 incident; and (iv) the removal of his gun and badge — qualify as adverse employment actions on their own.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to allege an adverse employment action; a failure-to-promote claim must identify a specific promotion sought and denied.

Chauhan v. MM Hotel Management LLC · filed 2019-11-18(a)(1)

None of these actions constitutes an adverse employment action. With respect to not being promoted, Plaintiff has failed to allege a specific promotion he applied for, or a date on which he applied, and that he was refused any such promotion.

A discrimination claim based on denial of a temporary assignment requires evidence that the assignment would have provided an employment benefit.

Vizcarrondo v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Northeast Reintegration Center · filed 2019-11-22(a)(1)

In this case, Vizcarrondo failed to cite any evidence establishing that the TWL Captain assignment would have resulted in increased pay, additional supervisory duties, better work hours, or any other benefits.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; a written warning that does not change employment terms does not qualify.

Passwaters v. Wicomico County · filed 2019-11-27(a)(1)

Passwaters’ March 2016 Written Warning also does not qualify as an adverse action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats reassignment to significantly different responsibilities as an adverse employment action even when pay, benefits, and title stay the same.

Poku v. University of Utah · filed 2019-12-06(a)(1)

Despite the University’s contentions, the court concludes that Adjei-Poku has established that she suffered an adverse employment action. First, while it is true that Adjei-Poku suffered no change in pay, benefits, or title, she was reassigned to a diversity position that involved significantly different responsibilities.

A layoff followed by reinstatement without loss of employment benefits did not constitute an adverse employment action under the circumstances.

Tyler-Perkins v. Virginia Community College System · filed 2020-01-10(a)(1)

Therefore, because Tyler-Perkins did not lose any of the benefits that she had at JSRCC due to her reinstatement, her layoff did not adversely affect the “terms, conditions, or benefits” of her employment under these particular circumstances.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment claim to allege discrimination affecting compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

GRANT v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE · filed 2020-01-13(a)(1)

Without such allegations, the Court cannot infer that the petition constituted an “adverse employment action,” altering Plaintiff’s “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a race-discrimination claim; a delayed response to cold office conditions causing mere discomfort does not qualify.

WESTBROOKS v. DHS-DFCS URBAN CO · filed 2020-01-27(a)(1)

Considering the Eleventh Amendment’s bar of Plaintiff’s ADA claims, the Court finds her complaints about the cold air (found in her deposition testimony) to be, for Title VII purposes, descriptive of only mere discomforts.

A sex discrimination claim requires an adverse employment action affecting the conditions of employment because of sex.

Allen v. Hammond City Police Department · filed 2020-01-28(a)(1)

Allen’s complaint does not allege any adverse employment action affecting the conditions of her employment that was taken because of her sex. Without this element, Allen has failed to state a claim for sex discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; nonrenewal of an employment contract qualifies.

Henson v. Texas Southmost College District · filed 2020-01-30(a)(1)

Of these, the only allegation that represents a recognized adverse employment action is the nonrenewal of her contract. As a result, Henson can base her discrimination claim solely on TSC’s decision to not renew her contract.

A race discrimination claim requires evidence of an adverse employment action; an unsupported allegation of denied overtime does not establish one.

Simmons v. United States Steel · filed 2020-02-11(a)(1)

The single exhibit with his own handwritten notations is inadequate to show that he was denied overtime in a manner that could be considered an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for an employment discrimination claim; an employee who resigns may satisfy that requirement by showing constructive discharge.

Owens v. WellCare Health Plans · filed 2020-03-02(a)(1)

Therefore, in order to meet the element of an adverse employment action as required for discrimination and retaliation claims, Owens must demonstrate that she was constructively discharged. ... Because Owens has not set forth any admissible evidence demonstrating that she was constructively discharged from her employment with CHMI or that she suffered any other adverse employment action, CHMI is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a national origin discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action affecting the terms or conditions of employment.

Haddaway v. Baltimore County, Maryland · filed 2020-03-04(a)

In sum, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any adverse employment action as a result of national origin discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat the loss of a discretionary bonus as an adverse employment action when the employee was not entitled to it.

Henderson v. Shulkin · filed 2020-03-05(a)(1)

As was true of the ADEA claim, the lost bonus does not constitute an adverse action under Title VII.

A disciplinary notation for late completion of required training does not qualify as an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Perry v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2020-03-10(a)(1)

The CBL disciplinary notation does not qualify as “an adverse employment action” for purposes of Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a sex-discrimination plaintiff to allege facts supporting an adverse employment action.

Pichardo v. Centene Company of Texas, L.P. · filed 2020-03-16(a)

Plaintiff fails to allege that she was subjected to an adverse employment action and her claim for gender discrimination fails for this reason.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; a threatened negative rating does not qualify.

Glascoe v. Solomon · filed 2020-03-17(a)

Second, Plaintiff’s allegation that Solomon threatened to give her a negative rating for undermining Smith—whether perceived as a reprimand, or, a threat of disciplinary action—does not amount to an adverse employment action.

A routine random drug test consistent with an employer’s policy is not an adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Cortez v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · filed 2020-03-25(a)(1)

It is undisputed that 25-40 warehouse employees were randomly chosen each month by a third party for drug testing. This is consistent with defendant’s policy on random drug testing. Under these circumstances, drug testing does not constitute an adverse action.

An appointment that automatically lapses under state law is not a discharge or adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Hall v. Marlboro County Sheriffs Office · filed 2020-04-01(a)(1)

Having reviewed the evidence in the record, the court concludes that no reasonable juror could conclude that Plaintiff suffered from an adverse employment action when his term as deputy sheriff statutorily lapsed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a race discrimination claim.

Daniels v. City of Greenville · filed 2020-04-08(a)(1)

As discussed, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Daniels, the City did not take adverse employment action against her. ... Accordingly, the court grants summary judgement to the City concerning Daniels’s Title VII and section 1981 claims.

A material reduction in a pregnant employee’s work hours can be an adverse employment action supporting a Title VII discrimination claim.

Deveaux v. Skechers USA, Inc. · filed 2020-04-09(a)(1)

As alleged in the complaint, following this exchange, Deveaux’s hours were reduced to 25 hours biweekly. This reduction in hours constitutes an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and withholding job referrals can be an adverse employment action.

Bliss-Miller v. Laborers International Union of North America Local 158 · filed 2020-04-29(a)(1)

The failure of the Defendants to refer her for additional work is an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to allege an adverse employment action.

Giordano v. Public Service Company of New Hampshire · filed 2020-05-12(a)(1)

To bring a successful discrimination claim under each of the statutes Giordano cites – the ADEA, Title VII, and the ADA — a plaintiff must have suffered an adverse employment action.

A Title VII discrimination claim requires an adverse employment action; a temporary suspension followed by a return to work was insufficiently pleaded as one here.

Fabela v. Corpus Christi Independent School District · filed 2020-05-21(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim under McCoy, which held that “administrative leave” with pay does not constitute an adverse employment action for the purpose of Title VII discrimination claims. ... Thus, her discrimination claims under Title VII are DISMISSED.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action with an objectively tangible effect on employment.

Achoe v. Clayton · filed 2020-05-28(a)(1)

Because Achoe has not established that he suffered an adverse employment action as required to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; unfair supervision does not support the claim when the plaintiff fails to show that it was an adverse action.

LaChica v. Russell Stover Chocolates, LLC · filed 2020-05-28(a)(1)

The plaintiff comes forward with no arguments showing how Jacobs’ treatment of him constituted adverse employment actions. It is not this court’s duty to make these arguments or assume them on behalf of the plaintiff. As these matters have been briefed and presented to the court, Russell Stover is entitled to summary judgment on Lachica’s claim of race or national origin discrimination for Jacobs’ unfair supervision and treatment of him.

Unequal pay and an excessive workload can qualify as adverse employment actions for a Title VII discrimination claim.

Craven v. City Of New York · filed 2020-05-28(a)(1)

As for the third, she plausibly alleges two adverse employment actions: that she was “paid less than a white male” — namely, Schaffroth — and that she was given “an excessive workload.”

A reduction in duties that affects an employee’s pay and professional standing can qualify as an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Lyons v. State of New York, Division of Police · filed 2020-06-02(a)

As such, Nelson has raised a material question of fact about whether the terms of his employment were adversely affected, and a rational factfinder could infer that these actions amounted to a “materially adverse” change.

A termination qualifies as an adverse employment action under Title VII’s prohibition on employment discrimination.

Alvarez v. Lakeland Area Mass Transit District · filed 2020-06-25(a)(1)

Still, because the District did eventually terminate her employment, the termination in December 2017 does qualify as an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a) covers a demotion that reduces an employee’s compensation and changes the terms of employment.

Whitehurst v. Bedford County School Board · filed 2020-07-06(a)

Thus, her allegations clearly suffice to demonstrate that an employment practice was taken against her “with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” 42 US.C. § 2000e-2(a).

Section 2000e-2 requires a discrimination claim to plausibly allege an adverse employment action because of the plaintiff’s race or sex.

Scott v. Associated Catholic Charities Inc. · filed 2020-07-08(a)(1)

However, the Amended Complaint does not adequately plead facts to support the inference that an adverse employment action took place because of his race or sex.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff must show an actionable adverse employment action; the employee’s subjective view of a suspension does not establish one.

Davis v. Legal Services Alabama, Inc. · filed 2020-07-16(a)(1)

Davis may have been offended, and he may indeed think that the mere act of being suspended amounted to a grave misdeed, but an employee’s subjective view of the significance and adversity of the employer’s action does not control.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a race discrimination claim; under the rule applied here, a disproportionate workload and disciplinary warnings without an ultimate employment decision do not qualify.

Reed v. Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi · filed 2020-07-16(a)(1)

A plaintiff claiming discrimination under Title VII must show that he was subjected to an ultimate employment decision, such as “hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, or compensating,” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a disparate treatment claim; an employer’s inadequate investigation of a discrimination complaint does not qualify when it does not alter the employee’s terms or conditions of employment.

Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester · filed 2020-07-24(a)(1)

I find no basis to disturb this precedent, particularly given that plaintiff makes no claim that the District’s allegedly insufficient investigations altered the terms and conditions of her employment in any way. I therefore conclude that plaintiff’s contention that the District failed to properly investigate her internal discrimination complaints does not plausibly allege an adverse employment action.

A written warning and removal from senior staff do not constitute adverse employment actions supporting a discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Coakley-Simelton v. Georgetown University · filed 2020-08-07(a)(1)

To the extent that Coakley-Simelton points to the written warning and her removal from senior staff, they again do not constitute adverse actions that can support a discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a disparate-treatment claim; a temporary cease-and-desist memo that does not change employment terms does not qualify.

Snyder v. Azar · filed 2020-08-10(a)(1)

Second, the issuance of the C&D Memo also did not constitute an adverse employment action because, by itself, it merely served as a notice to temporarily cease communication and contact with a colleague pending an investigation and did not change Snyder’s “terms and conditions of employment.”

Section 2000e-2(a) does not treat alleged harassment and attempted firing, without a change to employment terms, as an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim.

Iwebo v. Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc. · filed 2020-08-14(a)

Likewise, the alleged harassment and attempted firing by the shift coordinator is not an adverse action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; reprimands and a negative evaluation do not suffice without evidence that they affected employment terms or conditions.

Giovannetti v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections · filed 2020-08-21(a)(1)

Here, Giovanetti has not produced any evidence as to how Achey’s verbal reprimands and negative performance evaluation affected the terms or conditions of her employment. She has therefore failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that she suffered an adverse employment action.

Sending an employee home early with pay, without loss of pay or other adverse consequences, is not an adverse employment action for a gender discrimination claim.

Lloyd v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority · filed 2020-08-27(a)(1)

Consequently, Lloyd has also failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination with respect to being sent home early because she did not suffer an adverse employment action.

Paid administrative leave can qualify as an adverse employment action in a sex discrimination claim when the employee is also asked to resign, replaced in a coaching role, and treated differently from male coworkers.

Winn v. Cleburne Independent School District · filed 2020-09-03(a)(1)

The Court finds Winn has alleged facts to show her leave constituted an adverse employment action and stated a sex discrimination claim related to her leave.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discriminatory employment action to affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment.

Vedula v. Becerra · filed 2020-09-11(a)(1)

Aside from the claim relating to overtime compensation, HHS correctly argues that the other allegedly discriminatory actions do not qualify as adverse employment actions for purposes of a Title VII claim because they do not affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment.

An unpaid suspension and probation affecting pay can constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Horne v. Texas Department of Transportation · filed 2020-09-24(a)(1)

As the record reflects that Horne’s probation and five-day suspension without pay affected Horne’s compensation, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Horne suffered an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits religious discrimination that alters an employee’s terms or conditions of employment or adversely affects the employee’s status.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. CENTER ONE, LLC · filed 2020-09-30(a)

Thus, discriminatory conduct other than discharge or refusal to hire is prohibited by Title VII if it alters an employee’s “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” or deprives the employee of “employment opportunities” or “adversely affects [the employee’s] status as an employee.” ... These actions by defendant are more than enough to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will produce evidence to support a finding that the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment and his status as an employee were altered based his requests to accommodate his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an alleged adverse employment action to affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment.

Brooks-Mills v. Lexington Medical Center · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

Upon its consideration of the foregoing, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s allegations of discriminatory conduct, whether considered individually or in totality, do not constitute an adverse employment action sufficient to support Plaintiff’s discrimination claims under Title VII, § 1981, or the ADA.

A reduction in pay and title can establish the adverse employment action element of a Title VII race discrimination claim.

Davis v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. · filed 2020-11-03(a)(1)

The defendant’s argument, on its face, effectively acknowledges that “Tyson reduced [the plaintiff’s] pay”—one of the archetypal examples of an adverse employment action. In addition, the plaintiff’s title was changed from Level 8 Lead to Level 6 Lead. Because the defendant does not contest any of the other elements, the court finds, for purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment, that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Refusing to retain an employee in a permanent position can be an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Rosinbum v. Azar · filed 2020-11-06(a)(1)

Although Rosinbum appears to assert that sex or religious discrimination motivated a variety of negative interactions, HHS is correct that the only “adverse employment action” within the meaning of Title VII is the decision not to retain her as a permanent Staff Scientist.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats lower compensation than peers as an adverse employment action when it causes a material loss.

Kamrass v. Jefferies, LLC · filed 2020-11-19(a)(1)

Defendants’ decision to compensate Plaintiff less than her peers represents an actual material loss that is emblematic of adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff to plausibly allege an employment action that adversely affected employment or altered workplace conditions.

Tafazzoli v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission · filed 2020-11-30(a)

For purposes of a Title VII discrimination claim, “the plaintiff must show that her employer took an action that adversely ‘affect[ed] employment or alter[ed] the conditions of the workplace.’” ... Ms. Tafazzoli fails to plausibly allege an adverse employment action giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A Title VII race discrimination claim requires a tangible adverse employment action; derogatory remarks alone do not meet that requirement.

WESLEY v. PNC BANK · filed 2020-12-11

Although we condemn Ratcliffe’s completely inappropriate comments, Wesley has not alleged a tangible adverse employment action and, accordingly, we grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss her race discrimination claims.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action.

Veljkovic v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago · filed 2020-12-22(a)(1)

Because the complaint fails to allege that the Board took an adverse employment action against Veljkovic, her Title VII race discrimination claim is dismissed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to plausibly allege an adverse employment action motivated by a protected characteristic.

Belton, M.D. v. Borg & Ide Imaging, P.C. · filed 2021-01-12(a)(1)

Even under this lenient pleading standard, Belton’s race and sex discrimination claims fail to state a claim for relief because she has not plausibly alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action that was motivated by discriminatory animus.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows an increased workload to support a gender or national origin discrimination claim at the pleading stage.

Polan v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · filed 2021-01-19(a)

At the motion to dismiss stage Plaintiff’s allegations of increased workload are sufficient to allege an adverse employment action for purposes of her gender discrimination and national origin discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a denial of a transfer that would advance an employee’s career to qualify as an adverse employment action.

Zachery v. Coosa County Board of Education · filed 2021-02-02(a)

And by extension, the denial of a transfer that would have advanced the employee’s career can as well.

A voluntary resignation does not establish the adverse employment action required for a Title VII race discrimination claim.

Woods v. Torkelson · filed 2021-02-09(a)(1)

Under the uncontested facts, Plaintiff voluntarily resigned her employment and was not subject to an adverse employment action.

A firing is an adverse employment action for a Title VII disparate treatment claim.

Giles v. Alabama Goodwill Industries · filed 2021-02-09(a)

Giles is complaining about his firing, which is unquestionably an adverse employment action.

Under § 2000e-2(a), termination or an offer to retire in lieu of termination can satisfy the adverse employment action element of a sex discrimination claim.

Wilson v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District · filed 2021-02-16(a)

Being terminated, or given the option to retire, as Plaintiff was given, materially affected Plaintiff’s terms and privileges of employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats a failure to promote as an adverse employment action.

Harrington v. George Fox University · filed 2021-02-17(a)(1)

Failure to promote is an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats work requirements that alter an employee’s conditions and privileges of employment as an adverse employment action.

Brzycki v. University of Washington · filed 2021-02-18(a)(1)

The Court finds these requirements altered the conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment and were equivalent to assigning Plaintiff more burdensome work responsibilities.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; negative reviews, disciplinary meetings, and criticism alone do not qualify.

Buon v. Spindler · filed 2021-03-18(a)

Further, Plaintiff’s negative performance review, disciplinary meetings, and other forms of criticism do not constitute adverse employment actions in and of themselves.

A written warning is not an adverse employment action under Title VII if it does not materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Anderson v. Intel Corporation · filed 2021-03-22(a)(1)

The attendance-related written warning that Anderson received in August 2016 was not an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat discussion of a proposed job change as an adverse employment action when the change is never made.

Marzullo v. NLMK Indiana, LLC · filed 2021-03-22(a)(1)

First, the discussion itself is not an adverse action, and the Plaintiff suffered no materially adverse action as a result of the conversation.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an actionable adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; unfair treatment in meetings does not suffice.

Smith v. AZZ Inc. · filed 2021-03-23(a)(1)

The Court finds that Smith’s allegations constitute unfair treatment, not actionable adverse employment actions.

An initial denial of annual leave is not an adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2(a) when the employee ultimately receives the leave.

Saggu v. Brennan · filed 2021-03-26(a)

Similarly, Binkley’s initial denial of one day of annual leave while Saggu was still in India was not an adverse action because he ultimately was granted leave.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plausible adverse employment action motivated by a protected trait.

CASEY v. BRENNAN · filed 2021-03-29(a)(1)

This court is therefore unable to find Plaintiff has plausibly alleged facts which state, or permit a reasonable inference of, an adverse employment action by Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts giving rise to any reasonable inference that decisionmakers were motivated by a discriminatory intent.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a material adverse employment action for a race discrimination claim; safety write-ups that do not significantly change employment status do not qualify.

AMES v. HUTCHINSON · filed 2021-03-29(a)

However, Ames concedes that all three write-ups were for safety violations, (see id.), and these three write-ups do not constitute a significant change in employment status, see Stutler, 263 F.3d at 703; i.e., they are not material.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action to support a discrimination claim.

Cantu v. Ventura Foods LLC · filed 2021-04-01(a)

The poor performance review, switch to hourly status, general denial of overtime, requirement that he punch out for a full lunch, and the addition of duties within the scope of his job description were not adverse employment actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a race discrimination claim; a paid suspension does not qualify.

Faith Townsend v. Rockwell Automation · filed 2021-04-27(a)(1)

We have held that a paid suspension does not constitute an adverse action.

Cancellation of a temporary detail can be an adverse employment action when the employee loses a concrete benefit such as supervisory pay.

Dethridge v. McGettigan · filed 2021-05-04(a)(1)

Dethridge does, however, briefly state that cancellation of the detail resulted in “loss of the supervisory pay she would have received on the detail.” (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 75). Though modest, this allegation is sufficient to convey that the benefits of the Acting SICA role were concrete, not merely “intangible and speculative.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a race discrimination claim; disliked menu changes and write-ups without demotion do not suffice.

Evans v. Mosaic · filed 2021-05-06(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action. While the atmosphere at Mosaic is alleged to have been toxic due to Elbracht’s treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff does not allege that she suffered termination or constructive discharge, a cut in pay or benefits, or was forced to change job duties that constituted a materially significant disadvantage. The only adverse actions Plaintiff mentions are menu adjustments that Plaintiff did not prefer and write-ups that did not appear to result in any sort of demotion. This comes nowhere close to suffering an adverse employment action.

A performance-expectations plan can be an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a)(1) when a jury could find that it led to termination.

Johnson v. The Board of Education of the Bowling Green Independent School District · filed 2021-05-07(a)(1)

The performance-expectations plan therefore constitutes an adverse employment action for the purposes of the racial-discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a discrimination plaintiff to allege an adverse employment action.

Treadwell v. Sunbelt Rentals · filed 2021-05-11(a)

Additionally, the complaint does not appear to allege that any adverse employment action was taken against Treadwell. This is an essential element of a discrimination claim under Title VII, without which the claim must fail.

A teaching reassignment can be an adverse employment action under Title VII when it materially changes the terms and conditions of employment.

Bonaffini v. Brooklyn College · filed 2021-06-01(a)(1)

Under this rule, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the cancellation of his Italian courses and the accompanying reassignment to teach English courses were materially adverse with respect to the terms and conditions of his employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat an employee’s voluntary medical leave as an adverse employment action merely because the leave reduces her pay.

Wrenn v. Exelon Generation LLC · filed 2021-06-02(a)(1)

Every employee who opts to take a medical or disability leave and receives reduced compensation—or even no compensation—cannot claim an adverse employment action by their employer.

A race-discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action; criticism alone does not establish an ultimate employment decision.

Sussman v. University of Texas Medical Branch · filed 2021-06-04(a)

Sussman hasn’t alleged that she’s been terminated, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied leave. There’s also no indication that her salary or benefits have been impacted. And counsel confirmed at hearing that Sussman still works at UTMB. As such, Sussman hasn’t sufficiently pleaded facts to establish that she was subject to any ultimate employment decision.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a disparate treatment claimant to show an adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

GOODWIN v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS · filed 2021-06-10(a)

None of these instances rise to the level of an adverse employment action and, even if they did, they did not occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Sex-based appearance rules and less lucrative assignments can support a Title VII disparate-treatment claim when they have financial consequences.

Blaylock v. Twin Restaurant, LLC · filed 2021-07-15(a)(1)

In addition, plaintiffs allege that they, unlike male employees, were judged on their physical appearance and given less lucrative assignments based on the results. Depending on the financial consequences, such conduct could constitute adverse actions under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a disparate treatment claim when a reassignment plausibly amounts to a demotion or significantly changes an employee’s responsibilities.

Grays v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2021-07-29(a)(1)

The facts in the complaint, taken together, plausibly allege that Grays experienced a “demotion,” White, 364 F.3d at 797, and a “reassignment with significantly different responsibilities.” Redlin, 921 F.3d at 607.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) and (2) require a discrimination complaint to allege an adverse employment action affecting employment terms, opportunities, or status.

Recardo Terry v. Perdue · filed 2021-08-05(a)(1) & (2)

While the requirement that a plaintiff establish that his employer took an adverse employment action is part of the prima facie case, this requirement comes directly from the statute’s text that the employer’s practice relate to “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” or that the employer “deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) & (2); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a).

A reassignment that significantly diminishes an employee’s material responsibilities may be an adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

McFadden v. City of Columbus · filed 2021-08-10(a)(1)

And indeed, reassignment that “significantly diminishes material responsibilities,” may be considered an adverse employment action.

A claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an allegation that the employer took discriminatory action against the plaintiff.

Richards v. City of New York Comptroller · filed 2021-08-18(a)(1)

Plaintiff fails to state a discrimination claim under Title VII because he does not allege that his employer took any discriminatory action against him.

An employer’s alleged interference with a former employee’s unemployment benefits is not an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Allen v. Board of Trustees Rock Valley College · filed 2021-09-03(a)(1)

Unaware of any binding Seventh Circuit precedent to the contrary, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of Dismukes and Frederick and holds that the College’s alleged interference with Plaintiff’s post-termination unemployment benefits cannot be considered an “adverse employment action” for purposes of his Title VII and ADEA claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats the cancellation of research agreements as an adverse employment action when it affects an employee’s promotion prospects.

Yancy v. Azar · filed 2021-09-16(a)(1)

The cancellations are thus sufficient to constitute an adverse action in this instance.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action for a race-based disparate treatment claim; audits that do not alter an employee’s compensation or employment conditions do not qualify.

McCullough v. Gateway Health LLC · filed 2021-09-21(a)

Ms. McCullough fails to provide evidence Ms. Morgan’s audits beginning in April 2018 altered the terms of her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The evidence instead shows the opposite. Ms. McCullough fails to meet her burden she suffered an adverse employment action due to Ms. Morgan’s 2018 audits.

A transfer to light duty can be an adverse employment action when it significantly diminishes an employee’s responsibilities.

Hamilton v. City of New York · filed 2021-09-28(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because his placement on light duty has resulted in significantly dimin- ished material responsibilities in the unique context of the FDNY.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), losing bonuses tied to sales can be an adverse employment action in a sex discrimination claim.

Jones v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2021-09-30(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff has pled that her quarterly bonus payments (and yearly pay increases) were based on her sales, which necessarily implicates her performance ranking as an SSR. See ECF No. 18-1 ¶ 7. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that her lost bonuses was an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) can treat removal from a preferred assignment as an adverse employment action when objective evidence shows the reassignment was materially disadvantageous.

Renzi v. Oneida County · filed 2021-09-30(a)(1)

Despite all this, the Court still finds that Plaintiff’s removal from transport duties was an adverse employment action.