Adverse Job Action Case Law
In Collins v. State of Ill. (7th Cir. (1987) 830 F.2d 692, 703, the court said:
"We believe adverse job action is not limited solely to loss or reduction of pay or monetary benefits. It can encompass other forms of adversity as well.
For example, other courts have found adverse job impact, where there was no reduction in salary or benefits, in an employer's moving an employee's office to an undesirable location, transferring an employee to an isolated corner of the workplace, and requiring an employee to relocate her personal files while forbidding her to use the firm's stationary and support services." (Ibid., fns. omitted.)
While the Fifth Circuit broadly interprets the scope of an adverse employment action ( Rogers v. Equal Employment Opportunity Com'n (5th Cir. 1971) 454 F.2d 234), most circuits require that the action "be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.
A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation." (Crady v. Liberty Nat. Bank and Trust Co. (7th Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 132, 136.)
The employment action must be both detrimental and substantial. ( Bernheim v. Litt (2d Cir. 1996) 79 F.3d 318, 327 (conc. opn. of Jacob, C. J.).)