About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

27 U. Dayton L. Rev. 217 (2001-2002)
Defining Adverse Employment Action in Title VII Claims for Employer Retaliation: Determining the Most Appropriate Standard

handle is hein.journals/udlr27 and id is 227 raw text is: DEFINING ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION IN TITLE VII CLAIMS FOR EMPLOYER RETALIATION: DETERMINING THE MOST APPROPRIATE STANDARD Matthew J. Wiles* TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................... ............................................ 218 II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 220 A. Retaliation Claims Under. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ................................................................................................. 220 B. Defining an Adverse Employment Action in the Context of a Plaintiffls Prima Facie Case - the Split Among the Authorities ....... 223 1. Actions That Are Ultimate Employment Decisions .................. 223 2. Actions That Materially Affect the Terms and Conditions of Employm ent ........................................................................... 225 3. The Case-by-Case Approach to Adverse Employment A ctions ...................................................................................... 228 4. The EEOC Approach to Adverse Employment Actions ........... 229 I . D ISCU SSION ............................................................................................. 230 A. The Ultimate Employment Decision View Is Overly Restrictive and At Odds With the Purpose of Title VII ..................................... 231 B. The Case-by-Case and EEOC Standards Are Flexible But Too Broad and Unfair to Employers ....................................................... 235 C. The Materially Affects the Terms and Conditions Of Employment Standard Is Consistent with Precedent, Flexible and Fair to Employers and Employees ............................................................... 238 1. The MATCE Standard Is Consistent with the Statutory Text of Title VIrs Retaliation Provision and Relevant Supreme Court Precedent ......................................................... 238 2. The MATCE Standard Is Flexible Enough to Handle Various Factual Situations But Determinative Enough for Consistent Application ........................................................ 239 3. The MATCE Standard Advances the Purpose of Title VII Because It Is Fair to Both Employees and Employers .............. 241 2. Imposition of the MATCE Standard Will Substantially Prevent Courts From Interfering With the Business of Em ployers ................................................................................. 242 Executive Editor, 2001-02, University of Dayton Law Review. J.D. expected May 2002, University of Dayton School of Law; B.S., 1999, Bowling Green State University. The author wishes to thank Professors Cooley Howarth and Richard Perna for their insight and suggestions.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most