Opinion ID: 36683
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ultimate Employment Actions

Text: We have consistently held that in order to present a prima facie case for either disparate treatment or retaliation, a plaintiff must show that the employer took an “adverse employment action” against the plaintiff. See, e.g., Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2004). In this circuit, only “ultimate employment decisions” qualify as the adverse employment actions necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777, 781-82 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Title VII was designed to address ultimate employment decisions, not to address every decision made by employers that arguably might have some tangential effect upon those ultimate decisions.”). Ultimate employment decisions include hiring, granting leave, discharging, No. 04-30233 -9- promoting, and compensating. Mattern, 104 F.3d at 707; Hernandez v. Crawford Bldg. Material, 321 F.3d 528, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (explaining that the definition of ultimate employment actions in retaliation cases is derived from the definition of discrimination in disparate treatment cases).