Opinion ID: 2996224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Second Retaliation Claim

Text: Finally, we turn to Johnson’s claim that Cambridge retaliated against him a second time following his complaints to the EEOC. The alleged retaliatory acts included the company’s refusal to provide him a back brace following the back injury that he sustained while working; the decision not to allow him to work while taking prescription medications for that injury; and the Formal Notifications of Unsatisfactory Conduct that Johnson received. The district court resolved this second retaliation argument against Johnson, finding that he failed to make out the prima facie case for retaliation both because none of the alleged retaliatory acts (alone or together) constituted an adverse employment action, and because there was no evidence of a causal link between the protected conduct and the retaliatory act. As we have already explained, the law of this Circuit no longer requires a causal link to make out a prima facie case for impermissible retaliation. Stone, 281 F.3d at 642. But even with that hurdle cleared, Johnson still cannot make out his prima facie case unless he can show that the denial of the back brace, refusal to allow him to work while on pain medications, or the write-up constituted adverse employment actions. As we noted above, the range of employer conduct that constitutes an adverse employment action is broad, but 16 No. 02-1749 not unlimited. Haugerud, 259 F.3d at 691. In Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993), the court gave a list of materially adverse actions that an employer might take, including, of course, termination of employment, “a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities,” etc. These actions are all similar to the extent that they effect a quantitative or qualitative change in the terms or conditions of employment. Haugerud, 259 F.3d at 691. In the retaliation context, we have explained that the adverse action or harm that an employee suffers will not always be employment-related. See Herrnreiter, 315 F.3d at 745-46 (citing McDonnell v. Cisneros, 84 F.3d 256, 258-59 (7th Cir. 1996)). Nonetheless, the employee must complain of some action on the employer’s part that causes her to suffer a real harm. Cf. Schobert v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 304 F.3d 725, 731 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Every tort, whether it be one derived from common law or a statutory tort like Title VII, requires a showing of harm.”). Even under the more generous standard that governs retaliation claims, we do not believe that Johnson has suffered the necessary harm. The denial of a back brace and the enforcement of a pre-existing rule that employees may not work while taking certain prescription medications are not the type of employer actions that our cases label materially adverse. Cambridge’s decision to put a laundry list of complaints aired about Johnson’s work into writing looks more troublesome, but it cannot support this claim either. Our law is clear that without more, a performance evaluation of this type does not amount to an adverse employment action. See Haywood, 2003 WL 1400496 at ; Grube v. Lau Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 723, 729-30 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Unfair reprimands or negative performance evaluations, unaccompanied by some tangible job consequence, do not constitute adverse No. 02-1749 17 employment actions.”); Krause v. City of La Crosse, 246 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2001) (same). Johnson merely alleges that he received the written notification. He made no effort to show how it affected his employment from that time forward. The district court was therefore correct to reject this claim as well.