Does the mere investigation of an employee constitute a sufficient adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII retaliation?
MultiRegion, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Campbell v. State, 892 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2018):
3 As addressed below, merely investigating an employee might be a sufficient adverse employment action for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim. See Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County , 556 F.3d 797, 803 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Poland v. Chertoff , 494 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the disclosure of adverse employment references constitute an adverse employment action? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can an employer discriminate against an employee who is adversely affected by an adverse employment decision? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does Section 6672 of the Federal Tax Code require an employer to withhold withholding from an employee, even if the employer pays withholding taxes to the employee? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does an employer need to make clear to employees that the employer will have the final determination of employee benefits decisions? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for an employer to bring an adverse employment action against a plaintiff who is disabled? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What constitutes an adverse employment action? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for a plaintiff-employee challenging an adverse employment action as discriminatory or retaliatory? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is there any case law where an adverse employment action was sufficient to infer causation? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for an adverse employment action where an employee does not show that their new duties are less significant than their previous ones? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does a finding that neither defendants nor their officials engaged in employment practices with a willful or conscious purpose of excluding blacks or Mexican-Americans from employment constitute a finding of intentional discrimination? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
