Skip to main content

Lateral Job Transfer Does Not Qualify as Adverse Employment Action


Anderson v. The Mercer County Sheriff Department - Third Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Gloria Anderson (“Anderson”) worked for the Mercer County Sheriff Department (“Mercer”).  During the course of her employment, she was transferred to the Criminal Court Security Unit, which she claimed was an adverse employment action because the criminal courthouse was apparently contaminated with asbestos and Anderson had a note from her doctor saying that exposure to the asbestos was harmful to her health.

Anderson filed suit against Mercer and alleged race and gender discrimination and retaliation.  Mercer moved for summary judgment and the lower court granted Mercer’s motion as it held that Anderson had failed to show she suffered an adverse employment action.  Anderson subsequently appealed.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief only analyzes the race and gender discrimination portion of Anderson’s claim.)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that for Anderson to prevail upon her race and gender discrimination claims, she would need to satisfy the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework.  Therefore, Anderson was required to show that 1) she was a member of a protected class; 2) she was qualified for the position in question; 3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) the employer sought to or did fill the position with a similarly qualified person that was not a member of the protected class.

In this case, the Court noted that an “adverse employment action” required showing “an action by an employer that is ‘serious and tangible enough to alter the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.’”  This action must constitute “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision cause a significant change in benefits.

Based upon the facts in the record, the Court agreed with the granting of summary judgment in favor of Mercer.  Anderson was found to have failed to allege that the transfer constituted an adverse employment action because it did not cause a significant change in her employment status.  The record established that fifteen other officers were transferred around the same time as Anderson and Anderson had not alleged her responsibilities at the criminal courthouse were significantly different from the functions of the other officers.

As for any issues about being exposed to asbestos, the Court pointed out that the transfer occurred before any issues were raised about asbestos.  As a result, the Court found no factual dispute about the asbestos matter.

Judgment:  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee failed to establish that a lateral job transfer amounted to an actionable adverse employment action.

The Takeaway:  Now after reading through this short opinion, I suppose it is possible that a lateral job transfer could somehow amount to an adverse employment action.  In this situation, however, the employee simply could not satisfy the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework and show that the lateral job transfer constituted a significant change in her employment status.  Had the facts been more favorable to her, the employee might have had enough evidence to defeat the employer’s motion for summary judgment.  However, let us just call this a day late and a dollar short.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge McKee

Date:  May 27, 2020


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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more