Court Opinion

ID: 9786128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:48:10.424722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:41.900946
License: Public Domain

SPECIAL CONCURRENCE MINZNER, Chief Justice. {41} I concur in the opinion authored by Justice Franchini with the following exception. I am not persuaded that we ought to rely on all of the facts listed by the Court in paragraph 23 in affirming the jury’s verdict. I write separately to emphasize the significance, for me, of some of the facts. {42} As the opinion notes in paragraph 22, Ana Gonzales was required to show she was subject to an adverse employment action. Under federal law, an adverse employment action occurs when an employer imposes a tangible, significant, harmful change in the conditions of employment. See Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). Adverse employment actions cover more than quantifiable losses of salary or benefits. Jeffries v. Kansas, 147 F.3d 1220, 1232 (10th Cir.1998). For purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim, an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity. Chuang v. University of Cal. Davis, No. 99-15036, 2000 WL 1224780 (9th Cir. Aug.30, 2000). Actions having an adverse impact on future employment opportunities can constitute adverse employment actions for purposes of Title VII retaliation claims. Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F.3d 980, 986 (10th Cir.1996). In addition, “reassignment with significantly different responsibilities” can be an adverse employment action. Burlington, 524 U.S. at 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257. {43} The jury heard testimony that Gonzales was moved to an isolated office outside the main building shortly after filing her discrimination complaint and that she ceased to receive referrals for new patients after her move to the new office. This evidence is a sufficient basis upon which the jury could have concluded that Gonzales had suffered an adverse employment action. Though Gonzales did not suffer a reduction in salary or benefits or a change in job title, forcing Gonzales to relocate to a more remote location and ceasing to refer new patients to her could have been interpreted by the jury to be practices designed to physically isolate Gonzales from her peers, single her out from other psychologists by virtue of a reduced patient load, and negatively affect her opportunities for future promotions. Based on this evidence, the jury could have found that Las Vegas Medical Center’s actions were designed to force Gonzales out of her job in retaliation for her discrimination complaint. {44} For these reasons, I specially concur.