78 | Developments in Equal Pay Litigation 2026 ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP of the discrimination claims was appropriate because removing Williams from a temporary acting assignment cannot constitute an adverse employment action, as temporary posts do not implicate the ‘terms, conditions, or privileges’ of employment under Title VII.610 The court further found that none of the other actions she identified—including restoring her salary to its prior level, excluding her from meetings, or providing feedback she viewed as negative—rose to the level of an actionable adverse employment action because these kinds of workplace decisions did not result in a significant change in job responsibilities, pay, or status, and instead reflected ordinary supervisory management that Title VII does not regulate.611With respect to plaintiff’s job responsibilities, the court applied an objective standard, holding that “the record does not support the claim that her reduced responsibilities were objectively more desirable or prestigious than her increased responsibilities,” that they offered fewer opportunities for promotion or professional development, or that she was demoted either in title or in compensation.612 The fact that her new responsibilities were subjectively less appealing to her cannot, in and of itself, constitute an adverse employment action. Finally, the court concluded that the reason her employer did not give plaintiff a letter of recommendation is because she did not accept its severance package, which included such a letter as a perk.613 “Accordingly, even assuming that withholding a letter of recommendation would dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity, no reasonable jury could find the necessary “causal link between the two events.”614 Similarly, in Talbott v. Public Service Company of New Mexico, PNM,615 a manager of Customer Service Revenue alleged she experienced retaliation when she was subjected to an investigation, placed on administrative leave, and terminated due to her persistent questions and complaints about being paid less than male managers. The employer argued that the real reason for its actions against plaintiff was due to her conduct during its investigation of an incident involving a cash discrepancy.616 The court held that the employer’s missing cash investigation, by itself, cannot constitute an adverse employment action because she had not been the target of the investigation.617 “[A]lthough Defendant placed Plaintiff on administrative leave for allegedly interfering with the investigation, to the extent anyone was the target of the investigation, Plaintiff herself acknowledged that this person was [a different employee] (rather than Plaintiff).”618 Moreover, although her eventual termination indisputably qualified as an adverse action, the missing cash investigation was an intervening event that broke the causal connection between that protected conduct and her termination.619 “[E]vidence of temporal proximity has minimal probative value in a retaliation case where intervening events between the employee's protected conduct and the challenged employment action provide a legitimate basis for the employer's action.”620 Finally, after a defendant presents a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its adverse action, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating pretext. For example, in Thornhill v. WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp., a female sales representative discovered she was being paid a significantly lower base salary than her male colleagues.621 Following multiple complaints about this disparity, she was terminated, purportedly as part of a reduction-in-force (a “RIF”). The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims, finding that despite the defendant's assertions that plaintiff was selected for the RIF because she lacked necessary skills, a reasonable juror could conclude that 610 Id. at 8. 611 Id. at 6-9. 612 Id. at 575-76. 613 Id. at 576. (quoting Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 281 (4th Cir. 2015)). 614 Id. 615 Talbott v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M., PNM, No. 18-cv-1102 SCY/LF, 2020 WL 2043481 (D.N.M. Apr. 28, 2020). 616 Id. at *3-4. Among other things, the employer argued that the plaintiff had not been cooperative with the missing cash investigation and was disruptive with the investigation and her team. She was placed on administrative leave, given a written corrective action, and eventually terminated. Id. at *4-5. 617 Id. at *15. 618 Id. 619 Id. at *16 (quoting Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 1001-02 (10th Cir. 2011)). 620 Id. 621 Thornhill v. WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp., No. 3:23-cv-00673, 2025 WL 275130, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2025).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4