42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Section 2000e-2(a)(1)’s adverse action requirement can be met by a real and material worsening of working conditions, including reduced hours and pay, without comparing other employees.

SHAFFER v. CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-10-08(a)(1)

Because the “adverse action” element asks only whether an employer’s actions resulted in a real and material worsening of an employee’s working conditions, without reference to the circumstances of other employees (whether or not those other employees are outside the protected class), the Court concludes that Ms. Shaffer can meet this element of her prima face case.

A disparate treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action and facts supporting an inference of discriminatory motivation.

Malcolm v. Association of Supervisors and Administrators of Rochester, (ASAR) · filed 2021-10-19(a)(1)

Granting plaintiff every favorable inference, none of the complained-of acts, singly or in combination, arise to the level of an adverse employment action, or are sufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory animus.

A simple paid suspension is not an adverse employment action for a Title VII race-discrimination claim.

Davis v. Legal Services Alabama, Inc. · filed 2021-12-02(a)(1)

We agree with our sister Circuits that a simple paid suspen- sion is not an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff who is both a student and an employee to allege an adverse action affecting the employee role; an academic dismissal with an incidental loss of employment does not suffice.

Alberti v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia · filed 2021-12-09(a)(1)

In short, the complaint alleges an adverse action with regard to Alberti’s status as a graduate student—not as a graduate research assistant.

A single denial of leave for specified dates is not an adverse employment action under Title VII when it does not affect the employee’s general right to take leave.

Garrison v. Tregre · filed 2021-12-21(a)

Accordingly, the denial of plaintiff’s leave for April 2-6, 2018 was not an “adverse employment action.”

A demotion accompanied by a drastic pay cut and a change from full-time salaried work to part-time hourly work is an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Jones v. Wireless Time Alabama, LLC · filed 2022-02-10(a)(1)

As such, Jones has established an adverse action and a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require an adverse employment action to cause direct economic harm.

Freier-Heckler v. Wilkie · filed 2022-02-28(a)(1)

Title VII’s private sector prohibition does not limit adverse actions to only those that inflict economic harm, however. Section 703(a)(1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).

A reassignment may be an adverse employment action when it significantly changes an employee’s responsibilities, even if her title and salary stay the same.

Ponder v. City of Asheville · filed 2022-03-07(a)(1)

This evidence presented by the Plaintiff, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, creates an issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff’s transfer was an adverse employment action.

Rejection for a promotion is an adverse employment action under Title VII’s race discrimination prohibition.

HUNT v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE · filed 2022-03-23(a)(1)

Hunt applied for the Director of Information Systems position, he contends that he was qualified for the position, and he was rejected for the position, which is an adverse employment action.

An employee’s firing qualifies as an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a).

Jasnic v. Bisco, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(a)

Although the parties con- test whether Jasnic’s placement on the PIP meets this element, see Def.’s Br. at 14– 15; Pl.’s Br. at 13–14, her firing in December 2019 obviously qualifies, Bagwe v. Sedg- wick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866, 889 (7th Cir. 2016).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination or discriminatory discipline claim to allege an adverse employment action because of race.

SULLIVAN v. WAKE FOREST BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2022-04-11(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her race, her claims of race discrimination in employment claims pursuant to Title VII and § 1981 will be dismissed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats a reduction in job grade as an adverse employment action.

Robinson v. Austin, III · filed 2022-05-09(a)(1)

When viewing these facts as true and most favorably to Robinson, the reduction from a GS-11 to GS-8 position constitutes a legally sufficient adverse employment action.

Denial of a within-grade pay increase can be an adverse employment action when it affects an employee’s compensation or privileges of employment.

Ahuruonye v. Department of the Interior · filed 2022-05-31(a)(1)

Under the McDonnell Douglas standard, 411 U.S. at 802–05, the plaintiff has met his initial burden and has successfully established a prima facie case of race and national origin discrimination under Title VII by showing that (1) he is a member of a protected class, African American and Nigerian; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action because the denial of his WIGI caused “a significant change in employment status,” specifically with respect to his compensation and privileges of his employment, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (to establish an adverse employment action, the plaintiff must show that he was discriminated against “with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment”); and (3) a reasonable fact-finder could assume that the denial of the plaintiff’s WIGI could give rise to an “inference of discrimination[,]” see Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1130 (citing Brown, 199 F.3d at 452); see also Carroll, 321 F. Supp. at 68.

Section 2000e-2 requires an adverse employment action for a sex discrimination claim; mere workplace inconveniences do not qualify.

Ortiz v. Bank of Labor · filed 2022-06-09

The Court agrees with Defendant that these two actions did not rise to the level of adverse employment actions and were instead mere inconveniences.

Unsupported assertions of excessive workload do not establish an adverse employment action under Title VII.

McClelland v. DECHERT LLP · filed 2022-06-10(a)(1)

Without this evidence, the Court cannot find Ms. McClelland’s broad assertions of excessive workload rise to the level of an adverse employment action.

Denial of a single promotion opportunity is an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Algee v. Oregon Department of Human Services · filed 2022-07-08(a)(1)

The decision not to promote Plaintiff was therefore a qualifying adverse employment decision and the Court declines to grant summary judgment as to this claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats a loss of compensation for more than a month as an adverse employment action.

MUTAZZ v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC · filed 2022-07-13(a)(1)

Being deprived of compensation for a period of over one month would constitute significant change in benefits that affects the employee’s compensation and the associated privileges of employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) can cover denial of an academic researcher’s opportunity to present his work at a professional conference as a privilege of employment, without a separate showing of objectively tangible harm.

Liu v. Georgetown University · filed 2022-07-06(a)(1)

Here, the Court concludes that Liu has plausibly alleged that the University’s denying him the opportunity to present the results of his research at a professional conference constitutes the denial of one of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of [his] employment” for purposes of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

An adequately pleaded constructive discharge can qualify as an adverse employment action under Title VII’s discrimination provision.

Chatelle v. The State of Maryland, Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency · filed 2022-07-25(a)(1)

At bottom, the Court finds that Chatelle has adequately alleged an adverse action and will decline to dismiss on this basis.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a racial disparate treatment claim; the alleged changes during an employee’s final week did not qualify where they had no impact on her retirement benefits.

Britt v. Baker · filed 2022-07-26(a)(1)

The Court finds that none of these instances, which happened during plaintiff's last week of employment and had no impact on her retirement benefits, rise to the level of an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats a seven-month removal from work and payroll as an adverse employment action.

Billings v. State Of New York · filed 2022-08-19(a)(1)

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s dismissal and removal from the payroll for about seven months constitutes an adverse employment action.

For a religious accommodation claim, discipline must materially alter an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; attendance points and a corrective meeting alone do not suffice.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. CENTER ONE, LLC · filed 2022-08-19(a)(1)

Applying this standard, the Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the third element of the prima facie case because the alleged adverse actions did not materially alter the compensation, terms, privileges, or conditions of Mr. Ford’s employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action because of a protected trait; a performance improvement plan that imposes no new conditions does not satisfy that requirement.

Leghari v. Wilkie · filed 2022-08-25(a)(1)

But Dr. Leghari alleges no new employment conditions as a result of the PIP and the PIP on its face does not impose any. Thus, the Court agrees that the PIP cannot spearhead an adverse employment action in this context.

Section 2000e-2 requires a discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action affecting the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment.

Cunningham v. Wells Fargo N.A · filed 2022-08-30

Under this record, Plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination, section 1981 discrimination, and ADA discrimination claims fail because Plaintiff did not suffer a cognizable adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat a suspension with pay, without more, as an adverse employment action.

BARSODY v. CLEARFIELD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2022-09-12(a)(1)

The Court agrees that a suspension with pay, “without more,” is not an adverse employment action under the substantive provision of Title VII.

A decrease in take-home pay can constitute an adverse employment action for a Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim.

Stidhum v. 161-10 Hillside Auto Ave, LLC · filed 2022-09-15(a)(1)

However, the Court finds that a decrease in Plaintiff’s take-home pay can constitute an adverse action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse action affecting the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment.

Hillman v. Esper · filed 2022-09-27(a)(1)

Upon review, the court finds that the actions alleged by Hillman are not adverse employment actions as a matter of law.

A forced transfer to a less skilled position can satisfy the adverse employment action element of a Title VII race discrimination claim.

Sanders v. City of Toledo · filed 2022-09-28(a)(1)

Because the Sixth Circuit has long recognized that a forced transfer to a less skilled position may be an adverse action, Plaintiff has carried his burden on this prong of the prima facie case.

Termination is an adverse employment action under Title VII’s race discrimination provision.

Broadway v. Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center - South Bend Campus Inc · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1)

Ms. Broadway’s significant change in employment status occurred when she was terminated.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim; written reprimands that do not affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment do not qualify.

Harris v. Charles E. Smith Life Communities · filed 2022-10-03(a)(1)

Neither the First Warning Letter nor the Second Warning Letter amounted to an adverse employment action for purposes of a Title VII or ADEA discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination complaint to allege facts showing an action sufficiently adverse to the employee’s employment.

Jackson v. DeJoy · filed 2022-10-11(a)(1)

When viewing these facts most favorably to Jackson, neither is sufficiently “adverse” to sustain the claim based only on the facts averred in the Complaint.

Termination is an adverse employment action for a sex discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

NORRIS v. NLMK PENNSYLVANIA LLC · filed 2022-10-19(a)(1)

Thus, Norris concentrates her legal argument on her termination, which is an adverse employment action.

Termination is an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Chima v. KX Tech LLC · filed 2022-10-21(a)(1)

Termination is indisputably an adverse action for the purposes of a Title VII and CFEPA claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging Title VII discrimination to show an adverse employment action to establish a prima facie case.

WAHAB v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION · filed 2022-10-31(a)(1)

For the same reasons articulated for the parallel NJLAD discrimination claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made her prima facie showing under Title VII.

Termination and disparate pay can be actionable adverse employment actions under Title VII.

Smith v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. · filed 2022-11-03(a)(1)

The first step in such a determination is to identify the adverse employment actions, i.e., the employer action that harms Smith and relates to the terms of her employment contract or “the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). As discussed above, only Smith’s termination and the disparity between her pay and that of Terry H. and Skyler W. are actionable adverse employment actions.

Section 2000e-2 requires a discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Gissendanner v. General Motors Corporation · filed 2022-11-28(a)

In sum, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, because he cannot show that he suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action; a lateral transfer without a material change in employment or a demonstrated career setback does not qualify.

West v. Hartford · filed 2022-12-22(a)(1)

He acknowledges however that this was a purely lateral move that did not affect the terms and conditions of his employment, including his base salary, vacation leave, sick leave, and health and retirement benefits. ... In the absence of any genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff suffered a cognizable adverse employment action, the City’s motion for summary judgment as to Counts Three, Four, and Eight is granted.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discriminatory changes to an employee’s terms or conditions of employment, including revocation of a flexible schedule and reassignment to a non-managerial position.

Heavans v. Dodaro · filed 2022-12-23(a)(1)

Nonetheless, plaintiff does allege certain actions that undoubtedly affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of his job at GAO. Most notably, the revocation of his flexible work schedule and eventual reassignment to a different department in a non-managerial position are inarguably major changes to the conditions of his employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a disparate treatment claim; incidents with no adverse employment consequences do not qualify.

Romano v. Verisign, Inc. · filed 2023-02-07(a)(1)

In any event, neither the failure to send flowers nor the allegation about leaving a meeting constitutes a discrete adverse action that would support a claim for discrimination or retaliation, as there is no evidence that these acts led to any adverse consequences in her employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats a termination as an adverse employment action even when the employee’s resignation is imminent.

Biondolillo v. Livingston Correctional Facility · filed 2023-02-16(a)(1)

A termination may still constitute an adverse action even if the employee’s resignation is otherwise imminent.

Termination is an adverse employment action for a sex discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Huntsman v. MMC CORP · filed 2023-02-23(a)(1)

Of course, termination is an adverse employment action.

A proposed reprimand does not support a sex discrimination claim without facts showing that it affected the terms or conditions of employment.

Garza v. Blinken · filed 2023-02-27(a)(1)

The complaint is devoid of any facts suggesting that the proposed letter affected the terms and conditions of Garza’s employment. ... Without additional factual allegations, the court cannot find that a proposed letter of reprimand constitutes an adverse action under Chambers.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat ordinary workplace disputes as adverse employment actions for a disparate-treatment claim.

McClain v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2023-03-08(a)(1)

Rather, the allegations are merely workplace disputes, which would not be considered an adverse action for purposes of Title VII or the ELRCA.

Mandatory fitness for duty evaluations can form part of an adverse employment action under Title VII when they affect the terms or conditions of employment.

Reynolds v. CT Transit · filed 2023-03-15(a)(1)

To the extent she is, I find that the record suggests that the fitness for duty evaluations did form part of an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not support a Title VII claim when the alleged conduct involves no adverse employment action.

Cook 290601 v. Huss · filed 2023-03-21(a)(1)

Title VII, however, is wholly inapplicable to Plaintiff’s allegations, as nothing in the complaint suggests that Defendant Howard took an adverse employment action against him. Plaintiff’s Title VII claim will, therefore, be dismissed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action and evidence supporting an inference of sex discrimination; a brief paid reassignment during a reasonable investigation did not satisfy those requirements here.

Russo v. Wyandanch Union Free School District · filed 2023-03-28(a)(1)

Thus, nothing here indicates any discriminatory motive on the part of the District in instituting the investigation and administratively reassigning plaintiff during its pendency.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to allege an employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Jimenez v. Buttigieg · filed 2023-03-30(a)(1)

Further, Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing that the “terms, conditions, or privileges of [his] employment” changed as a result of his not receiving the temporary NOM position.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a religious discrimination claim; refusing to provide additional sales leads was not an adverse employment action here.

Schwartz v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-31(a)(1)

Plaintiff contends that Ferrara’s refusal to provide him with additional leads constitutes an adverse employment action. The Court, however, finds that this was not an adverse employment action and, even if it were, Plaintiff cannot show that Ferrara’s refusal was discriminatory.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employer’s action to affect an employee’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment to support a discrimination claim.

Little v. Garland · filed 2023-04-12(a)(1)

The Circuit recently clarified that, to constitute an adverse action sufficient to support a discrimination claim, an employer’s action need only “affect[] an employee’s ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’” Chambers v. District of Columbia, 35 F.4th 870, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). ... The Attorney General’s alleged refusal to give Little diversity-related data that she requested, see Compl. ¶¶ 87–94, does not constitute an adverse action sufficient to support either a discrimination or a retaliation claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not apply when the allegations identify no adverse employment action by a defendant.

Weston v. Louisville Metropolitan Government · filed 2023-05-24(a)(1)

Title VII, however, is wholly inapplicable to Plaintiff’s allegations, as nothing in the complaint or amended complaint suggests that any of the Defendants committed an adverse employment action against him.

A religious or national origin discrimination claim requires evidence of an adverse employment action or a rejected application under circumstances suggesting discrimination.

Escander v. Wormuth · filed 2023-06-07(a)(1)

Plaintiff's national origin and religious discrimination claims fail because he has not proffered sufficient evidence at this stage which would show that he suffered an adverse employment action or that he was rejected for a position under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A discharge is an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a)(1) even when the employer conditioned it on the employee’s failure to follow instructions.

Allison v. Lyondell Chemical Company · filed 2023-06-22(a)(1)

The fact that the discharge is conditioned upon certain events occurring or not occurring does not transform it into a resignation.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a disparate treatment claim; exclusion from professional development meetings alone does not qualify.

Jabari-Kitwala v. Montgomery County Public Schools · filed 2023-06-23(a)(1)

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s alleged exclusion from the “white only” racial groups during the professional development group meetings do not qualify as adverse employment actions for a disparate treatment claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; a delay in receiving additional uniform pants without a change in working conditions does not qualify.

Tango v. United States Capitol Police · filed 2023-06-26(a)(1)

An 11-week delay in receiving an additional set of pants, with no change in circumstances in the meantime, does not constitute an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that an employee suffered an adverse employment action because of sex or pregnancy.

Yang v. Strategic Behavioral Health Green Bay LLC · filed 2023-06-28(a)(1)

To defeat SBH’s motion for summary judgment on her claim for sex discrimination, Ms. Yang would need to present evidence that, considered as a whole, would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that she suffered an adverse employment action on account of her sex or pregnancy. ... It thus follows that Ms. Yang did not sustain a constructive discharge or any other form of adverse employment action.

For a Title VII disparate treatment claim, a written reprimand must be capable of causing a real employment injury to qualify as an adverse employment action.

Herbert v. University of Maryland · filed 2023-07-05(a)(1)

Significantly, he has not alleged facts demonstrating that the written reprimand could have had any adverse impact on his pay, job title, work responsibilities, or opportunities for promotion.

Suspension of teaching and committee duties and loss of salary increases, funding eligibility, or sabbaticals can materially change the terms or conditions of employment.

Beny v. University of Michigan · filed 2023-07-07(a)(1)

Suspensions from teaching and committee duties, missed salary increases, funding eligibility, and sabbaticals certainly amount to material changes in the terms or conditions of the plaintiff’s employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat the handling of internal complaints as an adverse employment action when it has no bearing on the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Shed v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees · filed 2023-07-10(a)(1)

But the handling of internal complaints is not an adverse employment action because it has no bearing on a term, condition, or privilege of his employment.

A raise smaller than one an employee claims was warranted can qualify as an adverse employment action for a Title VII discrimination claim.

Boutin v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC · filed 2023-07-17(a)(1)

The Court first finds that Plaintiff’s receipt of a 0.5% hourly wage increase based on his performance evaluation for 2019, rather than the 3% increase he claims was warranted, constitutes an adverse employment action for purposes of his prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2 does not treat an offer of a lower position that an employee declines as a discriminatory employment action.

Thomas v. Virginia Department of Transportation · filed 2023-07-05(a)(1)

I find that being offered, but not being forced, to take certain jobs, even assuming the jobs would be considered demotions, is not type of discriminatory act encompassed by Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an injury affecting employment; alleged physical or emotional harm from receiving a vaccine does not establish an adverse employment action.

JOHN DOE(S) AND JANE DOE(S) v. PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT · filed 2023-07-31(a)(1)

While such injuries may exist, they are not related to Plaintiffs’ “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Thus, the vaccinated Plaintiffs have not established that they suffered an “adverse employment action.”

A threatened pay decrease, without evidence of lost pay, does not establish an adverse employment action under Title VII’s sex discrimination provision.

Tennant v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-08-09(a)(1)

Without more than inconsistent and conclusory allegations of conduct, plaintiff cannot establish that the threat of a pay decrease amounts to an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discrimination in work schedules without requiring an ultimate employment decision.

Hamilton v. Dallas County · filed 2023-08-18(a)(1)

Today we hold that a plaintiff plausibly alleges a disparate-treatment claim under Title VII if she pleads discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, or the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of her employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not apply when the complaint alleges no adverse employment action.

Sanderson v. Louisville Metropolitan Government · filed 2023-08-24(a)(1)

Title VII and the KCRA, however, are wholly inapplicable to Plaintiff’s allegations, as nothing in the complaint suggests that LMG committed an adverse employment action against him.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a disparate treatment claim based on a reassignment that adversely affects an employee’s terms or conditions of employment.

Billie R. Banks v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2023-09-07(a)(1)

To assess whether Banks's reassignment constitutes an adverse action, we ask whether it impacted the "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). We conclude that a reasonable jury could find that it did.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a disparate treatment claim to proceed when discriminatory scrutiny and revocation of telecommuting privileges plausibly affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Smith v. McDonough · filed 2023-09-08(a)(1)

Therefore, the Court finds Smith has sufficiently pled he suffered adverse employment action based on unfair scrutiny of his work and having his telecommuting agreement revoked.

Paid administrative leave alone does not establish an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a)(1) without an effect on pay, benefits, or employment terms.

Burchfield v. South Louisiana Medical Associates, A Professional Corporation · filed 2023-09-13(a)(1)

Without more, Burchfield has not made a sufficient allegation of an adverse employment action based on her paid administrative leave.

Workplace reprimands and restrictions qualify as adverse actions under Title VII only if they materially affect employment.

Mercado v. Mount Sinai Beth Israel · filed 2023-09-14(a)(1)

Without a more fulsome factual showing, Plaintiff has failed to show that these incidents qualify as adverse actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits prolonged unpaid leave to count as an adverse employment action when it materially affects compensation or other terms of employment.

Brown v. NW Permanente, PC · filed 2023-09-20(a)(1)

Thus Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that this leave materially affected the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment. The Court will allow the religious discrimination claims to treat unpaid leave as an adverse employment action.

A disparate treatment claim requires the plaintiff to show an adverse employment action.

O'Horo v. Boston Medical Center Corp. · filed 2023-09-27(a)(1)

Dr. O’Horo’s claim fails, however, with respect to whether she suffered an adverse employment action.

An employer’s internal investigation or performance improvement plan is not an adverse employment action for a racial discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Phillips v. American Red Cross Blood Services Western Lake Erie Region · filed 2023-09-27(a)(1)

Plaintiff argues placing her on a Plan was an adverse action. However - as Defendant points out - as a matter of law, an employer's internal investigation or performance improvement plan is not an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a national origin discrimination claim; asking an employee to perform a task she refuses is not one.

El Mahdy v. Morgan State University · filed 2023-09-28(a)(1)

Being asked to perform a work task that she refused to perform is not an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action; an internal investigation without injury to employment status does not qualify.

Wiggins v. Baltimore Police Department · filed 2023-09-29(a)(1)

Without any injury to Plaintiff’s employment status, the internal investigations were not adverse employment actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats discipline that costs vacation benefits or promotion opportunities and a shift change that reduces pay as adverse employment actions at the pleading stage.

Herman v. City of New York · filed 2023-09-29(a)(1)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he suffered an adverse employment action, namely the excessive and unwarranted CDs which resulted in loss of vacation benefits and promotional opportunities, and the change in his shift which resulted in decreased compensation.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a disparate treatment claim; paid leave and changed duties do not qualify when they do not materially affect compensation, benefits, or employment privileges.

Lecadre v. Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General · filed 2023-09-29(a)(1)

LeCadre’s placement on paid administrative leave is not an adverse employment action because it did not affect LeCadre’s compensation or rights and privileges of employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse change in employment conditions for a sex discrimination claim; inconvenient rescheduling alone did not qualify here.

Caldwell v. Stamford Anesthesiology Services, P.C. · filed 2023-10-02(a)(1)

That Plaintiff needed to reschedule when he was mistakenly assigned to Dr. Papa’s cases, while certainly inconvenient, is not an adverse change to his employment.

A missed training opportunity does not establish an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a) when it does not affect the employee’s title, pay, benefits, or status.

Payne v. Kroger Limited Partnership 1 · filed 2023-10-04(a)

The bottom line is that Plaintiff has offered no evidence that his title, salary, or benefits suffered because of the missed training. His claims under Title VII therefore fail.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim based on denial of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic when the denial plausibly changes the conditions of employment.

Gayles v. Roswell Park Cancer Institute Corporation · filed 2023-09-28(a)(1)

At the pleading stage, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that she experienced an adverse employment action for the purposes of her Title VI] and NYSHRL claims.

A shift reassignment that reduces an employee’s available hours can qualify as an adverse employment action even if the hourly pay rate stays the same.

Hubbard v. FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2023-10-17(a)(1)

Accordingly, it is plausible to infer that reassignment to a shift with fewer available hours constitutes a de facto reduction in pay, even though plaintiff’s wage rate remained nominally the same.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action for a sex discrimination claim; reprimands that do not affect termination likelihood, the employee’s position, or future opportunities do not qualify.

Ferguson v. State of New Mexico Corrections Department Central Office Administration · filed 2023-10-17(a)

Plaintiff does not offer evidence that these letters affected the likelihood of termination, undermined her position, or affected future employment opportunities, including the revocation of the Cibola job offer following her employment with NMCD. Therefore, these reprimands cannot be considered adverse employment actions.

Indefinite unpaid leave imposed after an employee seeks a religious accommodation can plausibly constitute an adverse employment action.

Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth · filed 2023-11-09(a)(1)

Taking these allegations as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that indefinite unpaid leave was an adverse employment action and not a reasonable accommodation.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires more than de minimis discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Sambrano v. United Airlines Inc · filed 2023-12-18(a)(1)

Accordingly, a plaintiff alleges an adverse employment action if she alleges more than de minimis discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff alleging sex discrimination through indirect evidence to show an adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Sharpe-Miller v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2023-12-28(a)

While sex is a protected class under Title VII, Plaintiff did not suffer any adverse employment actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires more than de minimis harm to the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment for an adverse employment action.

Dixon v. Garland · filed 2024-01-12(a)(1)

Accordingly, a plaintiff alleges an adverse employment action if she alleges more than de minimis discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Section 2000e-2 can treat the loss of an endowed professorship as an adverse employment action even when the employer replaces the lost pay, if the loss affects the employee’s professional standing and job prospects.

Simons v. Yale University · filed 2024-01-17

Construing the evidence most favorably to the nonmovant, these facts are sufficient to show a materially adverse change to Plaintiff’s conditions of employment.

An office lockout can affect an employee’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Yazzie v. National Organization for Women · filed 2024-01-22(a)(1)

A reasonable jury could find that, by doing so, Van Pelt deprived Yazzie of the “enjoyment of” a “benefit” or “privilege” of her employment contract, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b), and discriminated against her in the “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

A former employer’s response to an EEOC charge does not constitute unlawful employment discrimination when it does not affect the former employee’s terms or conditions of employment.

Butterfly v. Benefis Health System · filed 2024-01-23

Thus, Butterfly has failed to establish that Benefis’s response to her first EEOC charge constituted an adverse employment action or unlawful employment practice to support a charge of retaliation or discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discrimination in the terms or conditions of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the court held that the alleged workplace slights were not adverse employment actions.

LYNCH v. WALSH · filed 2024-01-24(a)(1)

This Court also finds that not being allowed to use a radio at Plaintiff’s desk, being given only a “Fully Satisfactory” rating, and being denied a training opportunity are not adverse employment actions.

Denial of training or resources supports a disparate treatment claim only if it tangibly affects the terms or conditions of employment.

Clarke v. Barnhart · filed 2024-01-30(a)(1)

He therefore fails to establish that the alleged denial of training and resources had an effect—let alone a tangible effect—on the terms or conditions of his employment.

Exclusion from a training program is not an adverse employment action under Title VII when the program does not affect pay, benefits, or work conditions and does not guarantee promotion.

Gilmore v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2024-02-13(d)

The Court is not persuaded that exclusion from the MIT program rises to the level of an adverse employment action within the ADEA and Title VII framework.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require a plaintiff to allege an ultimate employment decision to state a discrimination claim.

Harris v. Amazon.com · filed 2024-02-20(a)(1)

In Hamilton, which we decided after the district court’s decision in this case, we overturned our precedent requiring a plaintiff to allege discrimination with respect to an “ultimate employment decision” in order to state a discrimination claim. ... Because the district court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss without the benefit of intervening Fifth Circuit authority, we VACATE and REMAND to allow the district court, in the first instance, to address Amazon’s motion to dismiss in light of Hamilton and Harrison.

A written reprimand is not an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a)(1) without facts showing real employment injury.

Curry v. South Carolina State Election Commission · filed 2024-02-29(a)(1)

Absent facts showing real employment injury, written reprimand does not rise to the level of adverse employment action.

A written warning that does not change an employee’s status, pay, or hours is not an adverse employment action under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Tucker v. Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc. · filed 2024-03-04(a)(1)

Thus, the January 15, 2020, write-up does not constitute an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action affecting a term, condition, or privilege of employment, but the action need not be an ultimate employment decision.

Fleming v. Methodist Hospital · filed 2024-03-11(a)

It is also unlawful to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the employee’s race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Accordingly, a textual reading still requires that some adverse employment act occurred that affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment.

A material reduction in an employee’s commissions can satisfy the adverse employment action element of a Title VII gender discrimination claim.

Vega v. New Home Star Florida, LLC · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations show she suffered employment action that materially and adversely affected her compensation. Plaintiff’s allegations satisfy the second element of a prima facie gender discrimination claim under Title VII.

Involuntary, indefinite unpaid leave can be an adverse employment action in a Title VII religious discrimination claim.

Gallagher v. Hawaii Symphony Orchestra · filed 2024-03-27(a)(1)

But unpaid leave can nevertheless constitute an adverse employment action, especially here—as Gallagher alleges, see, e.g., ECF No. 1 at PageID.13—the unpaid leave was both involuntary and indefinite.

A race discrimination claim based on a transfer must plausibly allege how the transfer adversely changed the employee’s working conditions.

Atherley v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2024-03-29(a)

However, the Complaint does not allege enough facts to show why that is the case and what impact being forced to return to 65 Court Street had on Plaintiff’s career and employment conditions. Without that, the Court cannot ascertain whether this transfer meets the requirement that Plaintiff allege an adverse employment action.

A race discrimination claim may survive dismissal when employees allege that race-based assignment decisions passed them over for work and financially affected them.

Brewer v. Chapters Health System, Inc. · filed 2024-04-11(a)(1)

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court assumes that all factual statements are true, including Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were passed over for various work assignments due to Defendants’ policy of honoring patients’ race-based preference requests, and that the race-based requests “financially affected” them. Although these allegations ultimately may not survive the threshold for adverse employment actions at summary judgment or at trial, the Court would be moving too quickly too soon it were to dismiss the claims at this time.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a sexual orientation discrimination claim based on a negative job reference treated as an adverse employment action.

Lundberg v. Delta Response Team, LLC · filed 2024-04-18(a)(1)

Lundberg alleges discrimination based on her sexual orientation when Walton provided a negative job reference, which for purposes of the motion to dismiss, I consider an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2 treats a threat of termination as an adverse employment action when the employer’s practices make future discharge more likely.

Patterson v. Virginia Department Of Corrections · filed 2024-04-19

VDOC’s failure to consider that menstruating females may have suspicious body scans more often, and the lack of policy tailored to that reality, renders the threat of termination and subsequently elevated likelihood of discharge an adverse employment action.

An employer’s unnecessary delay in communicating return-to-work conditions can be an adverse employment action when it extends unpaid maternity leave and causes economic injury.

Altwasser v. America's Auto Body, Inc. · filed 2024-04-25(a)(1)

AAB’s unnecessary delay in informing Altwasser about the conditions of her return to work caused her an economic injury by extending her unpaid leave, and this constitutes an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action for a national origin discrimination claim; alleged workplace actions that do not detrimentally change employment terms do not satisfy that requirement.

Aly v. United States Department of Treasury · filed 2024-05-08(a)(1)

Apart from Ms. Aly’s non-selection claim, the actions she alleges do not amount to adverse employment action when considered individually or collectively.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse employment action for a race discrimination claim; a factual dispute over whether the employer terminated the employee can preclude summary judgment on that element.

Holley v. BBS/Mendoza, LLC d/b/a McDonald's · filed 2024-05-20(a)

The Court need not undertake the complete McDonnell Douglas analysis, however, because BBS/Mendoza argues only that Ms. Holley did not suffer an adverse employment action. ... There are genuine issues of material fact as to the date and reason for Ms. Holley’s separation from employment. BBS/Mendoza fails to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Ms. Holley’s race discrimination (Counts I and II) and retaliation (Counts V and VI) claims.

A sex-discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a) requires an adverse action affecting a term or condition of employment.

Barnhart v. Smith's Food & Drug Stores · filed 2024-05-23(a)

As Defendant argues, and Barnhart concedes, Defendant’s actions did not constitute adverse employment actions because they did not alter any term or condition of his employment.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plausible allegation that a defendant took adverse employment action because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Robinson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service · filed 2024-05-28(a)

Plaintiff also has not plausibly alleged that Defendants Sedgewick Claims Management and Indemnity Insurance of North America took any adverse action against her in employment on the basis of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff to show some harm affecting an identifiable term or condition of employment; the harm need not be significant.

Smith v. Wilkie · filed 2024-05-31(a)(1)

Muldrow clearly states that an employment action not only must cause “some harm,” but also must affect “an identifiable term or condition of employment.”

A one-time less desirable work assignment, without more, is not an adverse employment action for a racial discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a).

Holmes v. Greenbrier Companies · filed 2024-06-07(a)

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ one-time assignment to a less desirable work assignment, without more, does not qualify as an adverse employment action.

Failure to renew an employment contract can be an adverse employment action under Section 2000e-2.

CARTEE-HARING v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2024-06-11

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that she was subject to an adverse employment action where Defendant failed to renew Plaintiff’s coaching contract.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discriminatory actions affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, and a firing can qualify as an adverse employment action.

Melvin v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc · filed 2024-06-20(a)(1)

The Court agrees with Hobby Lobby’s contention that, even under the more expansive definition of “adverse employment action” announced by the Fifth Circuit in Hamilton v. Dallas County, only Melvin’s firing constitutes a potentially cognizable adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a religious discrimination plaintiff to plead some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment; the harm need not be significant.

Cole v. Group Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2024-06-28(a)

After Muldrow, Cole is only required to plead “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Id. at 974.