OR · 42usc2000e-2:adverse-action
Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).
Exact element source
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employmentSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [128:318] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employeeSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [404:628] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| compensation-or-terms | Tangible change in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| constructive-discharge/conditions-not-objectively-intolerable | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not | |
| demotion/removal-of-supervisory-role-with-small-pay-cut | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied | |
| differential-treatment/no-similarly-situated-comparator-identified | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not | |
| discharge | Termination or constructive discharge (working conditions so intolerable a reasonable person had no choice but to quit) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| discharge/demotion-then-termination-after-escalating-discipline | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — satisfied | |
| discharge/fired-during-medical-absence | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied | |
| discharge/non-renewal-of-untenured-faculty | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — satisfied | |
| discharge/progressive-discipline-for-absences | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — satisfied | |
| discharge/same-day-termination-after-coworker-altercation | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — satisfied | |
| discharge/termination-after-escalating-discipline | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — applied/lower-court | |
| failure-to-hire/rejected-under-minimum-height-rule | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 — satisfied | |
| failure-to-promote/promotion-exam-results-discarded | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — satisfied | |
| refusal-to-hire | Failure to hire or promote | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| shift-change/permanent-night-shift-to-rotating-shifts-with-lost-differential | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/41/1073-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994 — comparator/merits; /us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) Tentatively phrased ("hard to say ... is not"); the only prima facie prong plaintiffs clear. | shift-change/permanent-night-shift-to-rotating-shifts-with-lost-differential | Prior to the reorganization, all plaintiffs worked the midnight shift on a permanent basis and received the night differential (4% of the officer’s base pay).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [11850:12008] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.In addition, plaintiffs argue that they lost overtime opportunities when they were forced to work rotating shifts because they could not routinely testify in court during the day.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [12127:12306] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Moreover, plaintiffs were precluded from maintaining other part-time work and incurred additional expenses for childcare that they did not incur prior to the reorganization.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [12311:12484] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.An employee suffers an adverse employment action if he experiences “materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges, of employment or future employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [10619:10891] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Similar to Freedman, it is hard to say that a change from a permanent midnight shift to a rotating shift where one’s schedule changes every month is not a change in the conditions or privileges of employment sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [14663:14925] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1. |
| /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) | discharge/same-day-termination-after-coworker-altercation | Mirth returned to Glenn and told him to punch out for the day because he was terminated.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [7899:7987] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.In establishing the third element of his prima facie case, Glenn need only show that he was discharged from a position for which he was qualified.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [40819:40965] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.In this case, the fact that Glenn was discharged is undisputed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [41117:41180] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f. |
| /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a) | discharge/non-renewal-of-untenured-faculty | 18. Less than one week later, on May 1, 1981, Turner received notice that he would not be rehired.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [7340:7438] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.32. On May 1,1981, Goetzman was notified that he would not be rehired.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [12255:12325] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8. |
| /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a) | discharge/progressive-discipline-for-absences | Breech received a written warning for his failure to report to work on November 24 and was advised that future failure to report to work would be met with increasingly severe discipline.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [9092:9278] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Breech failed to report on June 15th; subsequently, he received a reprimand and a three-day suspension.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [12635:12738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Breech met with Shelby Walker, Ron Campbell, and Wayne Sheffield (Vice President of Local 345) on July 24, 1991 at which time he was notified that his employment with APC was terminated.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [15294:15480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(2); party: plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; subject: party=plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count=second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal | failure-to-hire/rejected-under-minimum-height-rule | Although plaintiff’s name appeared first on the list, she was rejected because she did not meet the height requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [36091:36210] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
| /f3d/41/1073-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(2) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a); 2000e(k) | discharge/fired-during-medical-absence | As she was leaving for the funeral, Leona noticed Babich packing up Doe’s personal belongings from her desk.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [3816:3924] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.Doe called Kohl who told her that she had been discharged.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [3978:4036] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: demotion (Feb.-Mar. 2013); failure to reinstate supervisory duties (Aug. 2013); subject: count=demotion (Feb.-Mar. 2013); failure to reinstate supervisory duties (Aug. 2013) | demotion/removal-of-supervisory-role-with-small-pay-cut | Dr. Kent presented Dr. Hiatt with three options: (1) resign; (2) be demoted and undergo six months of outside counseling about her supervisory style; or (3) remain in her position and allow Human Resources (“HR”) to handle the matter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [5863:6097] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.In her new position as Staff Psychologist/Outreach Coordinator, Dr. Hiatt was paid $58,000— a $2,000 reduction in pay from her previous position.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [6946:7091] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.For discrimination claims, “[a]n adverse employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18344:18609] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.A reasonable person in Dr. Hiatt’s position would view her demotion to Outreach Coordinator, coupled with a salary decrease of $2,000, as an adverse employment action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [21957:22124] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.For the foregoing reasons, the only actions that qualify as adverse employment actions against Dr. Hiatt were (1) the demotion and (2) the failure to reinstate her supervisory duties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25940:26123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: resignation (May 2014); theory: constructive discharge; subject: count=resignation (May 2014); theory=constructive discharge | constructive-discharge/conditions-not-objectively-intolerable | Upon her return, Dr. Palma-teer increased Dr. Hiatt’s weekly clinical hours from 22 to 24 hours.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [11679:11775] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.She also required Dr. Hiatt to provide a doctor’s note to justify non-Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) sick leave, obtain permission before “blocking her schedule” (i.e., make certain blocks of time in her calendar unavailable for clinical appointments), and make up for missed clinical time.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [11776:12069] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.On May 30, 2014, Dr. Hiatt submitted a letter of resignation, in which she complained of retaliation for filing her internal EEO and EEOC complaints.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [13033:13182] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.“To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that she had no other choice but to quit.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [23022:23124] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.The working conditions she describes—such as being required to work two extra hours per week, turn in timely case notes, and justify non-FMLA sick time—do not amount to an objectively intolerable working environment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [23477:23693] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: differential workplace requirements after return from leave (2014); subject: count=differential workplace requirements after return from leave (2014) Plaintiff recast "differential treatment" (normally because-of/pretext evidence) as a free-standing adverse action; the court rejects it for want of comparators either way. | differential-treatment/no-similarly-situated-comparator-identified | She suggests Ross Artwohl and Kimberly Mercer as relevant comparators because, like she did, they reported to Dr. Palmateer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25415:25539] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt also proposes Dr. Fogle and Dr. Mathewson because Dr. Palmateer supervised them and the same professional standards applied to them as to Dr. Hiatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25673:25831] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.But because Dr. Hiatt supervised these two individuals, they were not in positions comparable to Dr. Hiatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25832:25939] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.An employee is similarly situated to the plaintiff if the employee shares the same supervisor, is subject to the same standards governing performance evaluation and discipline, and has similar relevant employment circumstances, such as work history.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25042:25291] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt has failed to identify any other similarly situated employees who allegedly received differential treatment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [25296:25414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); party: plaintiff Melvin Hicks, shift commander (respondent); subject: party=plaintiff Melvin Hicks, shift commander (respondent) | discharge/demotion-then-termination-after-escalating-discipline | He was later demoted from shift commander to correctional officer for his failure to ensure that his subordinates entered their use of a St. Mary’s vehicle into the official logbook on March 19, 1984.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [1514:1714] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.Finally, on June 7, 1984, he was discharged for threatening Powell during an exchange of heated words on April 19.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [1715:1829] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3. |
| /us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) Plaintiff quit after the harassment resumed; no constructive-discharge or tangible-action question is discussed. The Court treats the abusive environment itself as the discrimination in "terms, conditions, or privileges". | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(m); party: plaintiff Catharina Costa, warehouse worker (respondent); count: Title VII sex-discrimination claim tried to the jury (discipline and termination); subject: party=plaintiff Catharina Costa, warehouse worker (respondent); count=Title VII sex-discrimination claim tried to the jury (discipline and termination) Not contested in the Supreme Court; jury was instructed it must find she "suffered adverse work conditions" and found for her. | discharge/termination-after-escalating-discipline | Respondent experienced a number of problems with management and her co-workers that led to an escalating series of disciplinary sanctions, including informal rebukes, a denial of privileges, and suspension.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0090-01; Unicode character offsets [5337:5543] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9a7e4d9846d799473649658702ae2649d2f44f3694664d7d3e7eb291f31597df.Petitioner finally terminated respondent after she was involved in a physical altercation in a warehouse elevator with fellow Teamsters member Herbert Gerber.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0090-01; Unicode character offsets [5544:5702] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9a7e4d9846d799473649658702ae2649d2f44f3694664d7d3e7eb291f31597df. |
| /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(k),(l),(h),(j); party: plaintiff 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter who passed the examinations (petitioners); count: (a)(1) disparate-treatment claim for the refusal to certify the examination results; subject: party=plaintiff 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter who passed the examinations (petitioners); count=(a)(1) disparate-treatment claim for the refusal to certify the examination results Loss of promotion eligibility (not a certain promotion) is treated as the adverse action without discussion. | failure-to-promote/promotion-exam-results-discarded | The plaintiffs — who are the petitioners here — are 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter who passed the examinations but were denied a chance at promotions when the CSB refused to certify the test results.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [25021:25238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.The results would determine which firefighters would be considered for promotions during the next two years, and the order in which they would be considered.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [752:909] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
For discrimination claims, “[a]n adverse employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
For discrimination claims, “[a]n adverse employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [18344:18609] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).
interpretation
“To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that she had no other choice but to quit.”
/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
“To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that she had no other choice but to quit.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [23022:23124] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).
interpretation
An employee suffers an adverse employment action if he experiences “materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges, of employment or future employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.”
/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007
An employee suffers an adverse employment action if he experiences “materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges, of employment or future employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [10619:10891] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).