If you have a business with employees, you may already be aware of the various state and federal laws that protect your employees. And you probably know that you cannot punish or "do bad things" to employees on the basis of race, gender, nationality, age, sexuality, or disability, among other protected classes.
Read on as our Chicago business attorney at Ellis Legal explains adverse employment actions.
Adverse Employment Actions
But just what is a "bad thing?"
In other words, an aggrieved employee who wants to sue your business for harassment, discrimination, or retaliation often needs to show both that you (the employer) engaged in one of those behaviors and that the employee was punished somehow. Legally, these punishments or negative consequences at work are called adverse employment actions.
We all think of being fired as an adverse employment action, and it is. But there are other adverse employment actions that can give rise to an employee who feels he or she was discriminated or retaliated against, suing your business.
Some examples may include:
Denials of promotions, or of training or job assignments that may lead to promotions or salary increases
Giving employees "impossible" jobs or impossible workloads that they cannot possibly succeed in doing
Denying or not giving bonuses to employees or other favorable things at work (like offices) to employees
Isolation from social events or office gatherings
Denials of raises or promotions
Is a Job Change an Adverse Employment Action?
Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case that asked whether it was an adverse employment action where an employer changes an employee's job title, but otherwise, the employee doesn't suffer anything else—in other words, the change in job position or title carries the same salary and same prestige or status, as the old job.
Put another way—is a change in job by itself, with no significant negative consequences, an adverse employment action, allowing an employee to sue?
Even Minor Changes Can be Actionable
The Court ruled on the side of the employee, saying all the employee has to show is some change, which was motivated by or because of retaliation, harassment, or discrimination, even if the change is not material and even if the change carries no significant adverse consequences.
The employee suing still needs to show that he or she is in a worse position than before the job change for the change to be "adverse," but the employee doesn't need to show how worse off he or she is, nor does the employee need to show that he or she suffered any kind of significant harm by the job change.
It does not matter whether the Plaintiff (the aggrieved employee who is suing) was transferred or suffered a change in job title, status, or position. All that matters is that he or she suffered some harm—even if it was minor or relatively insignificant.
Be careful How You Treat Employees
This will likely open the door to a lot of litigation over whether or not employees have suffered adverse employment actions. However, it has made it easier for employees to make a case for discrimination or retaliation, and it is something that employers need to be wary of.
Speak with a Chicago commercial litigation law attorney at Ellis Legal at (312) 967-7629 today for questions about your business and its employees.