A one percent pay increase differential is an adverse employment action, the Sixth Circuit has ruled in Szeinbach v Ohio State University, No 11-3002 (August 10, 2012), reversing a summary judgment granted by the district court.
Sheryl Szeinbach is a tenured faculty member in Ohio State's College of Pharmacy. She claimed that she suffered retaliation for supporting a colleague who alleged discriminatory treatment by the university. One of the ways that she sought to prove the retaliation was a 1% smaller pay increase that she was allowed compared with her peers. The district court ruled that this was too small to amount to an adverse employment action. The Sixth Circuit reversed and explained as follows:
Given that the 1% salary-increase differential in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F3d 381 (6th Cir 2008), was held to "constitute a significant change in employment status ... or a decision causing a significant change in benefits," the district court should not have granted summary judgment to OSU on Szeinbach's salary-differential claim as to 2007 and 2008 on the grounds that OSU did not take an adverse employment action.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion was written by Judge Helene White joined by Judges Jane Stranch and Jerome Farris, a visiting judge from the Ninth Circuit.
