Opinion ID: 215941
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Watson's Misdirection Discrimination Claim

Text: Under Mr. Watson's next discrimination claim, he asserts that he was discriminated against, in violation of the ADA, when C.R. England misdirected [him] on several loads on his first training assignment. Watson Opening Br., No. 09-4217, at 38. More specifically, Mr. Watson claims that C.R. England sent him contradictory messages regarding his loads, which led him criss-crossing Omaha during rush hour while towing his trainee along. Id. at 42. He asserts that this is an adverse employment action giving rise to a viable claim under the ADA. We disagree. We have held that a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities does not constitute an adverse employment action. Sanchez, 164 F.3d at 532. The misdirection of loads that occurred in this case was nothing more than a mere inconvenience that does not constitute an actionable adverse employment action. Accordingly, Mr. Watson has failed to assert a prima facie case. The district court therefore committed no error in granting summary judgment in favor of C.R. England on this claim. [14]