Opinion ID: 2972112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Toledo Leak Investigation

Text: As Mr. Johnston fails to demonstrate that he suffered any adverse employment action as a result of the Toledo leak investigation, the Treasury Department was entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Johnston’s claim of retaliation. Mr. Johnston argues that the Toledo leak investigation in 1997 was conducted in retaliation for the group and individual EEO complaints he made in the spring of 1996. However, Mr. Johnston admits that all charges in the matter were dropped and that he was not otherwise punished in connection with the leak investigation. “An essential element of a retaliation claim is that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action that is tantamount to a materially adverse change in the terms of [his] employment.” Birch v. Cuyahoga County Probate Court, 392 F.3d 151, 169 (6th Cir. 2004). Even if it is assumed that the leak investigation was undertaken in retaliation for his EEO complaints, summary judgment was properly granted to the Treasury Department because Mr. Johnston cannot show the terms of his employment changed as a result of the investigation.