"Some harm" is all it takes.
A federal appeals court found this week that requiring an employee to enter an Employee Assistance Program may be an “adverse employment action” under the federal anti-discrimination laws.
One of the things you have to prove as a plaintiff in a discrimination case is that you were subjected to some sort of “adverse action” by your employer – for example, that you weren't hired, or you were fired, or demoted, or your pay was reduced. If the employer didn't do anything bad to you, then you have no case. That stands to reason.
(Of course, you also have to have some evidence that this adverse action was based on your race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age, as opposed to some other reason.)
Just a "pip" of harm may be enough
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a job transfer with no cut in pay could be an adverse employment action as long as the plaintiff suffered “some” harm. The plaintiff in that case was not demoted but was transferred to a lateral position with no cut in pay. But in the new job, her duties were more routine, she had to work weekends, and she lost the use of a vehicle that she could keep at home.
In our current case, the plaintiff worked in the billing department for a health care organization. She was counseled a number of times about her job performance and her workplace behavior, and the employer had decided to issue her a Performance Improvement Plan – which we in the employment law world...
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Manan Kumar Mishra on Friday hit out at Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, over his statement accusing the Election Commission of India (ECI)...