Aaron C. James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a slight decrease in pay coupled with some loss of supervisory responsibilities is insufficient evidence of constructive discharge”
• holding that “[t]he mere fact that a new job assignment is less appealing to the employee, however, does not constitute adverse employment action”
• holding that “[t]he mere fact that a new job assignment is less appealing to the employee . . . does not constitute adverse employment action”
• recognizing that “speculations about the impact of” an alleged adverse action on an employee’s “opportunities for professional development are merely that—stark assertions that are not sufficient to survive summary judgment”
• holding that an employee’s dissatisfaction with a reassignment is not an actionable adverse action
• concluding that an employee’s dissatisfaction with a reassignment is not an actionable adverse action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).