Court Opinion

ID: 9491802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:24:11.766186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:57.083502
License: Public Domain

RALPH B. GUY, Jr.,
concurring in part and writing separately.
I concur in all of Judge Moore’s opinion except Part III.D. I would affirm the dismissal of the retaliation claim.
*470Plaintiff claimed that her employment was terminated in retaliation for having filed an EEOC charge which alleged that defendant was refusing to return her to work or provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA. By the time plaintiff filed the EEOC charge in late November 1993, she had already concluded from her discussions with Paschal that he would not allow her to return to work or offer a reasonable accommodation. While there was evidence that Paschal was verbally hostile to plaintiff concerning the EEOC charge, such hostility does not constitute an adverse employment action. As the district court emphasized, defendant’s position concerning plaintiffs ability to return to work with or without accommodation remained essentially the same before and after she filed the EEOC charge. Thus, there was no evidence that plaintiff suffered any adverse action as a result of having filed the EEOC charge, and the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law to defendant on this claim.