Opinion ID: 2318487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Training Request

Text: Kumar claimed that appellees' denial of his request to attend an out-of-town training conference was an adverse employment action based on his race or national origin. Analogizing to Santa Cruz v. Snow, 402 F.Supp.2d 113, 127 (D.D.C. 2005), the trial court found that Kumar had not alleged an adverse employment action because the denial of the training request did not materially affect his employment. We agree with the trial court. It is well-established that an adverse employment action must involve a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). Although courts have recognized that a denial of training may rise to the level of an adverse employment action, in order to prevail a plaintiff must show legally cognizable adversity flowing from the denial.... Everson v. Medlantic Healthcare Grp., 414 F.Supp.2d 77, 85 (D.D.C.2006); Santa Cruz, supra, 402 F.Supp.2d at 127 (Denial of a training opportunity on allegedly discriminatory grounds can constitute an adverse employment action, [ ] but only if the denial materially affects the plaintiff's pay, hours, job title, responsibilities, promotional opportunities, and the like.) (citing Hoffman v. Caterpillar, Inc., 256 F.3d 568, 574 (7th Cir.2001) (other citation omitted)). Kumar's evidence did not show that he lost pay or status as a result of the denial. Rather, far from providing proof of adversity, Kumar's evidence showed that he received an increase in salary in the months to follow. Without more, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding Kumar's claim insufficient under Burlington Industries to survive judgment as a matter of law. See Burlington Indus., supra, 524 U.S. at 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (quotations omitted) (stating that [a] materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, ... decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, [or] a material loss of benefits, but not a bruised ego).