Employee Transfer Requests Turns Harmful for Employer
The US Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Kalamazoo County Road Commission v. Deleon, 135 S. Ct. 783 (2015). This means that the decision of the Sixth Circuit given in Deleon vs. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, 739 F.3d 914 (2014) stands and employers may soon need to reevaluate their approach to internal transfers of employees.
In Deleon, the Sixth Circuit had ruled that an involuntary lateral transfer of an employee may constitute an adverse employment action sufficient to give rise to a claim of discrimination. An employee who seeks for a job transfer and works in that for a period of 10 months still owes the right to claim that the transfer constituted an adverse employment action in support of his claim of discrimination.
Robert Deleon had applied for an open job as an equipment and facilities superintendent in the same office where he was working for the last 25 years as an “Area Superintendent” for the Commission. The job description stated that the position would involve working in a garage surrounded by loud noises and diesel fumes.
After an interview, Deleon was informed that he did not receive the position. He admitted that his computer skills, which were a substantive qualification for the position, were insufficient. Consequently, the commission hired another candidate who left the position shortly thereafter. The Commission then offered the position to an external candidate who eventually declined. Deleon’s transfer was “involuntary” because the transfer took place after months passed in his initial application. Deleon filed a suit for alleging race and age discrimination after working for around a year in the position.
The Sixth Circuit Court concluded that Deleon’s transfer was an adverse employment action that supported a discrimination claim. No reasonable employee could interpret a transfer as an attempt to punish him for exercising his antidiscrimination rights when he gave his employer no reason to believe that he did not want the transfer and every reason to believe that he did. An employer in the Sixth Circuit may now be liable for employment discrimination whether they deny or grant an employee’s request for transfer.
Related Content
Indo-US Legal Sector Redefined: Consulate General of India, New York, SEPC India, and Draft n Craft Join Forces.
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES, June 29, 2023-The Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference, a groundbreaking event aimed at fostering...
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States This...
Importance of Medical Records Summaries in Mass Tort Litigation
Mass torts cases are complex and often involve multiple plaintiffs who have suffered harm from the same product...
Care Plus and its Entities Agree to Pay $7.2 Million Against Anti-Kickback Allegations
On April 13, 2022, Care Plus Management, LLC (“Care Plus”), its founders Paul D. Weir and John R....
Copper Creek (Marysville) | Washington Court of Appeals on Effect of Bankruptcy Discharge on Statute of Limitations
On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 granted the motion for reconsideration and...
Federal District Court, California Dismisses Class Action Suit for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction
On April 01, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in dismissal of...
Southern District of Florida Grants Motion to Dismiss in Mass Class Action
On April 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted motion...
First Department Ordered New Trial in Personal Injury Damages Lawsuit
On March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided in Miller v. Camelot Communications Group, Inc., 2022...
Supreme Court of Georgia Rules out Product Liability due to Third Party’s Wrongful Behavior
The Supreme Court of Georgia on March 15, 2022, decided in Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., Case that a...
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Employers fate to be decided in 2022
On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced to review the most consequential PAGA case Viking...
New Jersey Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance
A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that would permit insurers to offer coverage to policyholders...
Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as Unconstitutional.
Tech groups criticize Florida's social media law as unconstitutional.
New York ‘HERO’ Act requires employers to establish airborne infectious disease safety protocols.
The New York HERO Act (S.1034-B/A.2681-B), a critical bill requiring businesses to have enforceable safety standards to prevent...
Cost-padding, profit shedding law firms! Are you one of them?
Cost padding happens when a business deliberately inflates its costs than what it has incurred and then passes...
Oral compliant sufficient for a retaliation claim
In order to bring an FLSA retaliation claim, an employee is required to make the complaint in writing...
Draft n Craft Joins Hands with Lex Witness for Outsourcing, Law & Technology–Concerns & Solutions
Nov 30, 2012 – Draft n Craft is pleased to announce LEX WITNESS as the official Media Partner (India) at...
Same Sex Marriages Ban: Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court of US is about to deliver a landmark decision on a socio-legal as well as...
COVID-19 and Virtualization at Draft n Craft
“Necessity is the mother of all inventions” COVID-19 has challenged each one of us professionally and personally and...
