District Court holds that a written disciplinary consultation was not an adverse employment action to support a claim pursuant to Title VII.

The plaintiff filed her lawsuit alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race and gender and that a co-worker was sexually harassing her. In rejecting the plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Title VII, the court first noted that the claimant did not suffer an adverse employment action, which is required to demonstrate a prima facie case of race and/or gender discrimination. In particular, the court reasoned that a written disciplinary consultation was not an adverse employment action because it did not result in a "demotion or denial of a promotion or pay raise, change in her work schedule or hours, or reassignment to a different position or location in the workplace." In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a record of the consultation was permanently placed in her personnel file, noting that there was no evidence that the consultation materially changed the terms or conditions of her employment. The court, likewise, found that the plaintiff's claims of a hostile work environment—which were primarily premised on the fact that a co-worker stared at her on four occasions and used the water cooler closest to her on two other occasions—failed because the actions were not severe or pervasive to defeat the employer's motion for summary judgment.

Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012