Employment Law Blog

Thursday, January 21, 2016

U.S. District Court for D.C. Holds That a Reduction in Responsibilities Can Be Retaliatory

In the case of Pitts v. Howard University the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that an employee's allegation that he was retaliated against by having his responsibilities curtailed, and having his number of direct reports reduced by 80%, was a materially adverse employment action which could support a retaliation claim. The employee had filed an internal complaint of discrimination, and approximately five months later he was removed from his assistant treasurer position and placed in the position of payroll and budget officer. He went from supervising 26 employees to overseeing four employees. While Howard University argued that the reassignment did not meet the legal definition of retaliation because it did not allege any changes to the terms and conditions of his employment, the Court disagreed, and found that a reassignment with significantly different responsibilities was retaliatory. 

© 2017 The Baror Law Firm | Disclaimer
7315 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 400, Bethesda, MD 20814
| Phone: 301.564.0456

Practice Area Overview | Racial and Ethnic Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Age Discrimination | Disability Discrimination | Pregnancy/Family Responsibility Discrimination | Sexual Harassment | Nonsexual Harassment | The Family Medical Leave Act | Retaliation / Wrongful Discharge | Wage and Hour Matters | Non-Compete Covenants | Employer Policies | Other Employment Issues | Articles | Testimonials | Our Team

Law Firm Website Design by
Amicus Creative