Opinion ID: 146224
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Altered Job Posting

Text: Morales's final claim, alleging retaliation only, focuses on the altered job posting. He maintains that, because he filed a complaint with the EEOC, the USPS changed the days off that were expected to come with a certain Distribution and Window Clerk position when it was posted for bidding. There is no dispute that the only difference between Morales's position at the time of this incident and the position in which he expressed an interest was that the new posting was expected to come with Saturdays and Sundays off, but was ultimately posted with Thursdays and Sundays off instead. We conclude that this alteration of rest days was insufficient to dissuade a reasonable employee from filing or supporting a charge of discrimination. In appropriate circumstances, not present here, a schedule change may operate to dissuade a reasonable employee from reporting workplace discrimination. See Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 69, 126 S.Ct. 2405. In this case, however, there is no indication in the record that changing the days off associated with the new posting affected Morales any more than it did other eligible bidders. See Lockridge, 597 F.3d at 473 (no adverse employment action where denial of office space left [the employee] in no worse a position than that held by similarly situated faculty members). Moreover, there is no evidence that Morales suffered any undue hardship as a result of continuing to have Sundays and Mondays, rather than Sundays and Saturdays, off. See Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 69, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (explaining that [a] schedule change in an employee's work schedule may make little difference to many workers, [but] may matter enormously to a young mother with school-age children); see also Washington, 420 F.3d at 662 (finding flex-time schedule critical to employee with disabled child, and recognizing that actions that would be harmless to most people [may] do real damage to select targets). Rather, Morales testified that, as a result of the rotation, he continued to have Sundays and Mondays off rather than a normal weekend schedule, which he would have preferred. This is plainly insufficient to support a claim for retaliation under the statute. Cf. Hughes v. Stottlemyre, 454 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 2006) (no actionable retaliation where there was no evidence to suggest [employee] suffered a materially significant disadvantage by having to work more Sundays and Wednesdays, rather than his preferred schedule). [16] We note that Morales's own medical expert failed to identify the altered job posting as a stressor contributing to his adjustment disorder. Thus, after careful consideration, we conclude that Morales has failed to prove that he suffered any adverse employment action capable of supporting his claims for discrimination or retaliation. [17] Accordingly, we vacate the verdict and remand to the district court with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in Potter's favor. No costs are awarded. Vacated and Remanded.