Skip to main content

A Requested Transfer May Establish an Adverse Employment Action



Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Facts:  On November 13, 2008, plaintiff Deleon applied for the position of "Equipment and Facilities Superintendent."  Deleon testified that if he had he been offered the job, he would have asked for a $10,000 raise to compensate for the poor working conditions, described as "in a garage where there is exposure to loud noises and diesel fumes."  The commission initially hired another candidate, who soon quit.  An external candidate was then offered the job, who declined.

In 2009, Deleon was transferred to the position without a raise and was not offered a choice on the transfer.  Notably, Deleon moved from an office environment to a "facility with running trucks and equipment that resulted in constant exposure to diesel fumes."  He offered testimony that he was the only Area Superintendent position subject to these conditions and developed bronchitis, in addition to a cough and sinus headaches, from the diesel fumes.  Deleon was eventually terminated after taking an extended FMLA leave.  He subsequently brought suit against Kalamazoo and alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause and discrimination claims.

Kalamazoo moved for summary judgment against Deleon's suit and the District Court granted the motion.  The District Court held the actions complained of by Deleon failed to amount to an "adverse" employment action.

Holding:  The Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court and held that while lateral transfers that do not affect pay, title or work hours are often not deemed "adverse," a transfer without such tangible changes" may be an adverse employment action if it constitutes a demotion evidenced by a "less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation."  As well, the Court cited caselaw which held that whether a particular reassignment is materially adverse depends upon the circumstances of the particular case and should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering all the circumstances.

Consequently, the Court held that based upon the testimony and evidence that Deleon had presented to the District Court, there was sufficient evidence to present a material issue of fact to defeat Kalamazoo's motion for summary judgment. 

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Keith 

Date:  January 14, 2014 

Opinion:  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0012p-06.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more