Opinion ID: 782965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Akers's retaliation claim against the Cabinet

Text: 27 In order to establish a claim of retaliation, Akers must prove that (1) she engaged in an activity protected by Title VII, (2) the exercise of that protected right was known to the Cabinet, (3) the Cabinet thereafter took an employment action adverse to Akers, or that Akers was subjected to severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment by a supervisor, and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action or harassment. Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court, 201 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir.2000). The district court held that although Akers satisfied prongs (1), (2), and (4) of this test, she failed to establish that she had suffered a materially adverse employment action under prong (3). 28 In order to establish an adverse employment action, Akers must show a significant change in her employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, a significant change in benefits, or other factors unique to her particular situation. Bowman v. Shawnee State Univ., 220 F.3d 456, 461-62 (6th Cir.2000). Akers alleges three employment actions that she contends are materially adverse: (1) transfer to a different office, (2) retaliatory harassment by Alvey in the form of increased criticism, withholding her mail, ignoring her, and encouraging her coworkers to ostracize her, which resulted in her social death within the office, and (3) the Cabinet's refusal to rehire her following a negative recommendation by Alvey. We will now examine each of these contentions in turn. 29
30 Even assuming that Akers was involuntarily transferred to the Hardin County office, as she alleges, she failed to demonstrate how this transfer was materially adverse to her. She did not suffer a decrease in pay, her job duties were not significantly changed, and the transfer actually reduced Akers's roundtrip commute from her home by 60 miles per day. We thus agree with the district court that Akers's transfer was not a materially adverse employment action. See Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 885 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that a plaintiff failed to establish that her transfer and change in job title was a materially adverse employment action, reiterating that reassignments without salary or work hour changes do not ordinarily constitute adverse employment decisions in employment discrimination claims).
31 Although the district court failed to consider whether Alvey's post-complaint harassment was retaliatory, this court has previously held that severe or pervasive supervisor harassment following a sexual-harassment complaint can constitute retaliation for the purposes of a Title VII action. Morris, 201 F.3d at 792. Because the court's decision in Morris was an extrapolation of Supreme Court precedent allowing a Title VII action to be based upon severe or pervasive supervisory harassment in the sexual-harassment context, the standard for severe or pervasive harassment is the same in the retaliation context as in the sexual and racial discrimination contexts. Broska v. Henderson, 2003 WL 21518733, at  (June 30, 2003). Under this standard, the harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (citation omitted). As this court noted in Broska, this test has both an objective and a subjective component: the conduct must be severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively regard that environment as hostile or abusive. Broska, at . 32 The Cabinet responds to Akers's retaliatory harassment claim by arguing that Alvey was removed as Akers's supervisor immediately following the conclusion of its investigation of Akers's complaint to the Cabinet, and that any harassment that may have occurred following Akers's complaint was not severe or pervasive enough to support a retaliation claim. All of the incidents giving rise to Akers's complaint about retaliation occurred during the two-week period that the Cabinet took to investigate her charges. In Morris, the supervisor in question engaged in retaliatory conduct that was much more severe and pervasive than that alleged in this case, including calling the plaintiff over 30 times for the sole purpose of harassing her, sitting outside her office staring in her window, and throwing nails onto her home driveway on more than one occasion. Id. at 793. The court in Morris distinguished that case from the simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents that [the Supreme Court in] Faragher indicated did not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of a plaintiff's employment. Id. at 793. 33 Alvey's alleged post-complaint conduct (i.e., ignoring Akers, encouraging her coworkers to do the same, criticizing her work, and withholding her mail) falls somewhere in between the egregious conduct in Morris and simple teasing or offhand comments. The alleged retaliation was confined to the two weeks during which the Cabinet was diligently investigating Akers's complaint and despite the Cabinet's circulation of a memo in the Grayson County office instructing that no retaliation would be tolerated. Due to the short duration and relatively mild nature of the post-complaint harassment, as well as the Cabinet's directive prohibiting retaliatory conduct, we do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Alvey's alleged harassment reached the level of severe or pervasive conduct required by Morris for a retaliation claim.
34 Akers's final basis for her retaliation claim is the Cabinet's decision not to rehire her for a different position four months after her resignation. Even assuming that Akers presented a prima facie case of retaliation based upon Alvey's alleged input into the decision, the Cabinet articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to rehire Akers; namely, poor reviews from her coworkers and other supervisors, including Akers's supervisor during the few months that she was employed in the private sector. The Cabinet thus contends that Alvey's alleged retaliatory input was immaterial to its decision not to rehire her. Akers has failed to rebut this contention. Because Akers has not shown that this proferred legitimate reason was pretextual, we agree that the Cabinet's refusal to rehire Akers does not support her retaliation claim. 35 In sum, none of Akers's allegations are sufficient to establish a materially adverse employment action by the Cabinet. The district court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment as to Akers's retaliation claim.