Opinion ID: 616359
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Remaining Actions

Text: The remaining actions of which Tepperwien complains fall into the category of trivial harms and petty slights or minor annoyances. Barry's purported threat to walk Tepperwien off site was made after Tepperwien facetiously asked whether he could kick Vito in the groin. The threat, which was made in the course of a heated conversation, was never carried out. Shapiro's purported threat of termination was made after Tepperwien asked not once, not twice, but three times to tape record the meeting. This threat likewise was never carried out, and Tepperwien was allowed to call his lawyer, and someone from the lawyer's office was permitted to participate in the meeting by telephone. See Vazquez v. Southside United Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., No. 06-CV-5997 (NGG)(LB), 2009 WL 2596490, at  (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (Courts interpreting Burlington Northern have held that empty verbal threats do not cause an injury, and therefore are not materially adverse actions, where they are unsupported by any other actions.). Barry's comment and stare during the employee meeting are not materially adverse actions. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (`[P]ersonality conflicts at work that generate antipathy and snubbing by supervisors and co-workers are not actionable.' (quoting 1 Barbara Lindemann & Paul Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 669 (3d ed.1996))); Martinez v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 04-CV-2728 (LTS)(DFE), 2008 WL 2220638, at  (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2008) ([I]ncidents where [supervisor] publicly yelled at [plaintiff] for various reasons or called him `shit' . . . constitute, as a matter of law, the sorts of petty slights and personality conflicts that are not actionable.). Barry's use of a false reason to bring Tepperwien in for a meeting to discuss his complaint to the NRCa meeting that Tepperwien surely would have wanted to attend anywaywas hardly the kind of action that would dissuade a reasonable employee from complaining. Even assuming Barry's motive was retaliatory, the method by which he summoned Tepperwien to the meeting was not in itself a material adverse action. Finally, the switch to the night shift was not materially adverse because, as his own testimony makes clear, Tepperwien requested it. During the outage, the day shifts were combined, and as a consequence Tepperwien was scheduled to work with Messina. Tepperwien met with O'Hara, the union shop steward, to complain, and O'Hara suggested switching to nights. After speaking with his wife, Tepperwien agreed to make the request, in part because he would have every weekend off. Tepperwien told O'Hara that he would take the shift change, O'Hara made the request to Barry, and Barry granted it. Even after the outage ended, Tepperwien decided to stay on nights. Hence, the record shows clearly that Tepperwien asked to be moved to the night shift, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that he ever objected to working nights or that he ever asked to be moved back to the day shift.