Labor & Employment Law

2nd Circuit issues another decision clarifying an adverse employment action

2nd Circuit issues another decision clarifying an adverse employment action
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/

Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2008, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Beyer v. County of Nassau, ___F.3d___ (2d Cir. April 23, 2008), demonstrates the importance of understanding what an adverse employment action is under Title VII. The court held that an employee has established an "adverse employment action" necessary to make out a prima facie case when she has proffered evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a transfer sought and denied would have involved an objective and significant improvement in the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment.

The court described the law in this area as follows:

Employment actions that we have ?deemed sufficiently disadvantageous to constitute an adverse employment action include ?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 . . . unique to a particular situation.?? Williams, 368 F.3d at 128 (quoting Galabya v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 2000)). A denial of a transfer may also constitute an adverse employment action, but we require a plaintiff to proffer objective indicia of material disadvantage; ?subjective, personal disappointment? is not enough. Id.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 14, 2008 (boomark / email).