Opinion ID: 2981615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliation by Adverse Action

Text: Demonstrating the third prima facie element in a Title VII retaliation case, an adverse employment action is less onerous than in the discrimination context in that it “is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 64 (2006). “[A] plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. at 68 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, Plaintiffs have arguably demonstrated a number of adverse employment actions, including the investigations, loss of remote parking privileges, requirement to complete time sheets, and Yolanda Arnold’s suspension and transfer. Plaintiffs Eddie Arnold, Boyce, Houston, Redmond, Rickman and Taylor cannot establish a prima facie case because they failed to present sufficient evidence of a causal connection between their discrimination complaints and the adverse employment actions. - 19 - For the same reasons that we concluded in section III.c that Yolanda Arnold failed to show pretext in the race-discrimination context, she did not demonstrate that any allegedly retaliatory adverse employment actions were causally connected to her protected activity.