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,...
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

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more