Do Employees Have to Prove They Suffered An Adverse Action to Sue for Discrimination? Maybe Not!

Employees suing for discrimination have to prove that they suffered an adverse employment action, right? Maybe not, according to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Litton v. Talawanda School District, No. 10-3559 (June 2012).

Litton was the head custodian at Talawanda High School in Oxford, Ohio. During a restructuring of the Talawanda School District’s custodial division, the District removed Litton’s head custodian title and transferred him to a middle school with the same pay, hours, and responsibilities. Although Litton applied for several other lateral positions, he did not receive any of them. Alleging that the District demoted him because of his race, Litton sued. At trial, while the jury found that race was the primary motivation for the District’s treatment of Litton, the jury also found that Litton did not suffer any adverse employment action as a result of the District’s alleged discrimination.

It is well-settled in all federal circuits that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the standard under which plaintiffs must prove a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination through circumstantial evidence, requires plaintiffs to prove, among other things, that their employers subjected them to an adverse employment action (such as termination, demotion, decrease in pay, etc.) to maintain an actionable claim for disparate treatment discrimination. In Litton, however, the Sixth Circuit sidestepped the McDonnell Douglas framework, stating, “once the case proceed[s] to trial . . . we are no longer concerned with whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, but instead focus on the actual question of discrimination.”

While subtle, the Sixth Circuit’s holding green lights claims for “lamentable-but-benign discrimination,” as suggested by Chief Judge Batchelder in her vehement dissent. As Judge Batchelder pointed out, under the new law of Litton, if no adverse action is required, then an employee could sue for being promoted because of his or her race, which is “nonsensical.” In practice, under Litton, plaintiffs need only survive summary judgment (which requires them to prove only that the evidence is not “so one-sided that [the defendant] must prevail as a matter of law”) to completely remove the issue of whether they suffered an adverse employment action from the case.

Going forward, employers will need to heavily focus on the adverse employment action issue during discovery and at the summary judgment stage because under Litton, that prong of the case essentially vanishes after summary judgment. It remains to be seen whether other circuits will follow this rationale.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.