Assigning Cleaning Duties Not an Adverse Employment Action
By A recent decision from the Middle District of Tennessee sheds light on the meaning of “adverse action” in the context of discrimination cases. See Pope v. General Dynamics Information Technologies, Inc., 2010 WL 1727850 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2010). The plaintiff, Marie Pope, sued her former employer under the Tennessee Human Rights Act for discrimination based on, among other things, disparate treatment. Pope claimed the employer discriminated against her by assigning her cleaning duties for a year, at the exclusion of Pope’s male co-workers. The employer admitted that its warehouse supervisor assigned Pope the duties, and told her, “you are a female and you are good at it.” However, the employer claimed Pope had asked for the duties.
In a disparate treatment case, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that an adverse employment action occurred. The Pope Court explained that an adverse action is a material and adverse change in the terms and condition of employment, such as termination, a decrease in pay, a less distinguished title, a material loss of employment benefits, or a significant reduction of material responsibilities. Further, the Court explained that a showing of mere inconvenience or alteration of job responsibilities is not enough to satisfy the burden.
The Court acknowledged that the assignment of cleaning duties exclusively to women can be discriminatory. However, the Court found that the employer was entitled to summary judgment because Pope failed to show that any adverse action occurred — specifically, Pope suffered no decrease in pay, loss of employment benefits, or reduction of material responsibilities.
Previous Post