Opinion ID: 786106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credit Exchange

Text: 67 Mr. Lucas next contends that he was the only employee disciplined for going to the credit exchange during the hours of 7-9 a.m. In explaining what discipline he received, Mr. Lucas merely asserts that he was disciplined, Appellant's Br. at 12-13, and written up, id. at 29-30. In response to the CTA's argument that Mr. Lucas failed to assert any adverse employment action, Mr. Lucas only elaborates in his reply brief that he was issued a caution and instruct[ed] by Escorcia to create a paper trail after going to the credit union. Appellant's Reply Br. at 15. However, at no point does Mr. Lucas indicate what the tangible consequences of the write up and discipline were. 68 Mr. Lucas fails to allege adequately any adverse employment action resulting from this discipline. Our past decisions indicate that a negative evaluation or admonishment by an employer does not rise to the level of an adverse employment act. See Sweeney v. West, 149 F.3d 550, 556-57 (7th Cir.1998) ([N]egative performance evaluations, standing alone, cannot constitute an adverse employment action.); Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 442 (7th Cir.1996) (same). There must be some tangible job consequence accompanying the reprimand to rise to the level of a material adverse employment action; otherwise every reprimand or attempt to counsel an employee could form the basis of a federal suit. See Sweeney, 149 F.3d at 557. Mr. Lucas failed to prove such a tangible consequence existed. Because Mr. Lucas failed to put forth the appropriate facts to demonstrate an adverse employment act regarding the discipline he received for visiting the credit exchange, his discrimination claim must fail.