Is "Gimmie My Award or I'll Sue" a Valid Claim?

29 July 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

With retaliation claims on the rise in the United States for the sixth year in a row, employers need to be cautious when dealing with an employee who has engaged in protected activity (such as making complaints about unlawful conduct or filing claims), because any “adverse employment action” could potentially provide a basis for a retaliation claim. But what qualifies as an adverse employment action? Some actions, like demotion or termination, are easily understood as adverse employment actions. But what about other, less extreme actions? For example, can an employer deny the employee extra discretionary benefits without it being called an adverse employment action? A recent case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Bridgeforth v. Jewell, sheds some light on this question.In the case, the employee’s supervisors could have nominated him to receive an award of paid time off for certain acts performed while working. During his employment, the employee, a police officer with the United States Park Service, filed a discrimination claim that settled after about three years. According to the employee, after settling the claim, his employer retaliated against him by failing to nominate him for the paid time off awards on five occasions during the three months following settlement. Key to the employee’s allegations was whether the failure to nominate him for this paid time off award constituted an adverse employment action. The court held that it did not.

In so deciding, the court gave employers some useful language to consider when weighing the effect of an employment action on an employee who has engaged in protected activity. The court said that an adverse employment action involves “a significant change in employment status” demonstrating “objectively tangible harm.” Petty slights or minor annoyances that all employees experience do not qualify as adverse employment actions. In the Bridgeforth case, the employee failed to show that he was consistently nominated for the award, or that the nomination always led to receiving the award. The benefit that he did not receive was thus too attenuated to be considered a significant change in his employment status.

Often employees who have engaged in protected activity remain employed after filing a claim. Employers must then tread carefully when making decisions that might affect the employee’s employment status. It is helpful for employers to have clarity about what actions are considered adverse and might be subject to a retaliation claim, and which actions are simply “petty slights and minor annoyances” that all employees experience. Along with suggesting some guidelines for a “significant change in employment status” and “objectively tangible harm,” the Bridgeforth case sheds some positive light with respect to at least one specific situation: lack of nomination of an employee for a discretionary award does not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. However, as retaliation claims continue to rise, employees will surely come up with other ways to perceive being slighted, such that any time an employer knows an employee has engaged in protected activity, it should carefully vet any changes to the individual’s employment circumstances.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services