Opinion ID: 3023187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Reinstatement Claim

Text: Tanganelli’s failure to reinstate claim is based primarily on her allegation that she was not given a set of keys to open and close the store. She admitted, however, that she was provided with keys one week after she returned to work.5 She also admits that her salary and benefits were unaltered, that she remained part of the “management loop,” that she was given keys to the cash register (which is a responsibility given only to Assistant Managers and the Store Manager), and that she was responsible for the store’s operation perquisites and status. It must involve the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities, which must entail substantially equivalent skill, effort, responsibility, and authority.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(a). 5 In her brief to us, Tanganelli denies making any such admission and “hotly disputes that she was ever given such keys,” Appellant’s Br. at 3. In her deposition, however, she clearly stated that she was given keys one week after she returned to work. “I came back on a Monday. I didn’t have keys until the following Monday . . . . I did not have keys for a week.” (App. II at 94.) 5 when the Store Manager was absent. Precious little remains. The mere fact that Tanganelli was not invited to a meeting (which she was nevertheless permitted to attend and in which she participated) does not support a finding that she was not reinstated to her former position. Nor does the allegation that the schedule she created was discarded. “The requirement that an employee be restored to the same or equivalent job . . . does not extend to de minimis or intangible, unmeasurable aspects of the job.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(f). Finally, as the District Court correctly noted, Tanganelli’s allegation that she was called a “piece of driftwood” does not support a claim for reinstatement because it has “no bearing on her duties and responsibilities as Assistant Manager.” (App. I at 21)