Tag: adverse employment action

Fourth Circuit Court Decision Indicates Narrow View On What Constitutes Adverse Employment Action When an employee faces Title VII discrimination in the workplace, this typically takes the form of adverse employment action. Often what constitutes such action may be recognizable such as termination or a cut in pay, but often what action might rise to such a level has been murkier. However, in a recent case before the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the court has taken a narrower view of what might constitute such action. In this case, the plaintiff worked as a drama teacher for a public high school, a position he had held since 1987. In addition to teaching theater classes, he also acted as the theater director for staging the school's theatrical performances, which by his account, required long hours of work in addition to teaching. In order to assist him, he repeatedly requested over several years that the school hire a theater technical director to assist him. In support of this, the plaintiff pointed to multiple other high schools in the school system that employed such a position. The plaintiff also requested that the school system provide him additional pay for performing the duties of both the theater director and the theater technical director. These requests were denied on multiple occasions, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination under Title VII. The Fourth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of these claims on summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff's claims did not amount to adverse employment actions. First of all, the court found that the refusal to hire an additional employee was not an adverse employment action because the hiring of a theater technical director is not tied to employment as a drama teacher and nothing in the terms or conditions of employment included the benefit of having other teachers to assist him or her. On the second point that the school failed to pay a technical supplement, the court found that no adverse action occurred because the plaintiff never alleged that he was required to perform these duties as a condition of employment. The court's reasoning on these points would suggest a relatively narrow view of what constitutes an adverse employment action. Learn More For the point of additional pay or bonuses, the court's view would seem to indicate that an employee's complaint must be directly connected to an employer's requirements of the employee rather than actions the employee willingly takes. Similarly, the court's viewpoint concerning the hiring of an additional employee would appear to indicate that denying benefits that would be primarily intended to benefit individuals other than employees would not constitute an adverse employment action. When taken together, this decision could significantly reduce exposure for employers to claims of discrimination. Discover the benefits of Pre-employ’s seamless background checks for your business. Contact a Sales representative today. Sources

Tag: adverse employment action

Fourth Circuit Court Decision Indicates Narrow View On What Constitutes Adverse Employment Action

Our Process

Our Platform

Screenings

For Your Industry

For Your Role

Webinar

Resources Library

Logins

E-Book

Services

Industry

Resources

Our Company