Open in App
  • Local
  • U.S.
  • Election
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle
  • Education
  • Real Estate
  • Newsletter
  • Michigan Lawyers Weekly

    Employment – Adverse employment action – Retaliation

    By Michigan Lawyers Weekly Staff,

    2024-05-31

    Where a defendant employer has moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff employee’s retaliation claim, that motion should be allowed because requiring the plaintiff to attend a medical examination was not an adverse employment action.

    “In Count III of her complaint, Plaintiff Darlene Johnson contends that her former employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs (‘VA’), retaliated against her for complaining about disability related harassment, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. 701, et seq. Defendant Dennis R. McDonough is the Secretary of the VA. Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 54). For the reasons herein, the Court will grant the motion.

    “Defendant argues that requiring Plaintiff to undergo a medical examination was not an adverse employment action. He also contends that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a causal connection between any protected conduct and an adverse employment action. The Court concludes that Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action, so the Court need not address the causation element.

    “Plaintiff’s assertion that she suffered an adverse employment action is a tenuous one because the VA did nothing more than tell her that she had to attend a medical examination or face possible consequences. After Plaintiff did not comply with the VA’s demand, she suffered no consequences. At most, she suffered the inconvenience of having to respond to the VA’s request by seeking an accommodation or attempting to explain why the examination was not necessary. But that inconvenience is not significant enough to rise to the level of a materially adverse employment action.

    “In short, Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action. Accordingly, she has not established a necessary element for her retaliation claim under the RA.”

    Johnson v. McDonough; MiLW 03-108008 , 19 pages; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan; Jarbou, J.

    Click here to read the full text of the opinion

    Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.

    Expand All
    Comments / 0
    Add a Comment
    YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
    Most Popular newsMost Popular

    Comments / 0