For years, employers have taken comfort in a belief that unless an employment decision involves termination or financial consequences, it cannot give rise to an actionable claim under Title VII. After a recent decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, even “small” employment decisions should not escape review for compliance with Title VII’s anti-discrimination requirements.
As a reminder, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers “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 employment” because of one’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The statute, however, provides no further guidance on the basics of what specific employment decisions or actions (aside from hiring or firing) fall within the law’s “otherwise discriminate against” catch-all.
In considering this question, employers have generally operated on the assumption that only decisions with tangible economic harm – such as terminations and pay cuts – are the types of things that fall into the “otherwise discriminate” category. In doing so, employers have had ample support from the many courts that have grafted a materiality component onto Title VII’s discrimination prohibition – usually relying on words or phrases, such as “adverse action,” that are found nowhere in the actual text of Title VII. In essence, these courts...
The Ministry of SMEs and Startups said a social media post claiming that Minister Lee So-young paid 12.2 billion won with Onnuri gift certificates at a vegetable shop in Gwangju is not true and si...