Is a transfer that limits future career prospects a materially adverse employment action? The answer is "yes" according to the Sixth Circuit's decision in Wasek v. Arrow Energy, No 10-2418 (June 20, 2012).
Wasek worked for Arrow Energy as a derrick hand at an oil rig in Pennsylvania. At the time, nine of Arrow's thirteen rigs were located in Pennsylvania, the others being in Michigan, West Virginia and New York. The plaintiff, Harold Wasek, after being warned not to, complained about a same-sex sexual harassment directed at him by a co-worker. As a result, he was reassigned to a rig in Michigan. He claimed retaliation and argued that the reassignment to Michigan was a materially adverse employment action. The Sixth Circuit agreed and in an opinion written by District Judge Amul Thapar explained as follows:
... the ban was materially adverse to Wasek's employment because nine of Arrow Energy's thirteen rigs are in Pennsylvania. Wasek's future employment options were severely limited. See Barton v. Zimmer, 662 F3d 448, 454 (7th Cir. 2011)(noting that adverse employment actions include transfers that reduce future career prospects).
