Opinion ID: 28009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Written Reprimands

Text: We have consistently held that reprimands do not constitute adverse employment actions for Title VII retaliation purposes. Mattern, 140 F.3d at 707-08; Messer, 130 F.3d at 140. However, Gregory argues that his written reprimands precluded him from consideration for promotions and merit increases under TYC policy, and therefore had a direct effect on ultimate employment decisions. As such, he argues they are actionable adverse employment actions. In Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 1995), we considered a similar argument. The plaintiff there argued that denial of a “desk audit” had restricted her opportunities for promotion. Id. at 779. We held that because the denial of a desk audit had only a tangential effect on plaintiff’s upward mobility by removing her from consideration for a promotion, and not an ultimate effect such as causing her to lose her job, it was not actionable under Title 6