CourtCases2010

Although the evidence strongly suggests that in fact

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: y conduct asserted by McAlindin and considered by the district court in its 1995 order n11 was the following: (1) his co-workers ignored him; the County (2) failed to provide necessary training when he returned from disability leave; (3) [**29] failed to transfer him to a different job; (4) failed to extend his employment status as "leave without pay with right to return;" and (5) reprimanded him for sleeping on the job. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n11 In his briefs, McAlindin alludes to additional incidents of retaliation. Because McAlindin chose to dismiss the part of his retaliation claim that was based on these incidents in order to create appellate jurisdiction, we do not consider these incidents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It is undisputed that by vigorously asserting his rights under the ADA, as well as other state and federal discrimination laws, McAlindin engaged in protected activity and established the first element of a prima facie case. The County claims, however, that McAlindin has not established the second element. Relying on cases from other circuits holding that an employer's conduct must constitute a demotion or be similarly severe, the County contends that McAlindin has not suffered an "adverse employment action." The County is correct that McAlindin's sense of isolation is not actionable. [**30] See Strother, 79 F.3d at 869 ("Mere ostracism in the workplace is not enough to show an adverse employment decision." (citation omitted)). n12 In addition, the County's refusal to extend McAlindin's "right to return" [*1239] beyond a year, which was dictated by its leave policy, was not an adverse employment action. Given that the County permitted McAlindin to return to his job and informally assured him all along that it would respect his rights under the ADA, we see no harm that constituted an adverse action. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footn...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online