Third Circuit finds that docking plaintiff’s pay was not an adverse employment action to support a claim for retaliation.

Plaintiff asserted that he was provided with a verbal warning, a written warning and was docked 15 minutes of pay in retaliation for “not fitting into a traditional male role as [the] breadwinner” for his family. The Third Circuit, in affirming summary judgment in favor of the employer, rejected plaintiff’s claims of retaliation. In so holding, the court noted that the warnings did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action, noting that “the warnings would remain in his file only temporarily and did not ‘effect a material change in the terms and conditions of his employment.’” The Third Circuit also determined that “the 15 minutes of docked pay [was] simply too ‘negligible’ to qualify as an adverse employment action, especially given that [plaintiff] presented no evidence that this loss of income affected his well-being.” This decision demonstrates that while plaintiffs will attempt to argue that many disciplinary steps are “adverse employment actions,” employers can and should argue that they are not adverse employment actions, particularly when it does not result in a demotion or the termination of employment.

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015