Diane M. Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, an Employer and Business Corporation in the State of Minnesota Joseph C. Burton

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 plaintiff must establish a “tangible injury” resulting from an unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information in order to state a claim
• holding that an “evaluation [that] resulted in a loss of status or prestige without any material change in [the plaintiff’s salary, position, or duties” did not constitute an adverse employment action
• observing that a negative performance review does not in itself constitute an adverse employment action, as it has no tangible effect upon the recipient’s employment
• reasoning that, “[although subsection (d)(1) provides that subsection (a)’s general prohibition against discrimination shall include discrimination on the basis of medical examinations and inquiries, that provision is only one of several protections afforded by subsection (d
• remanding for a determination as to whether the improper medical inquiry caused a \tangible injury\ capable of supporting the suit
• finding a negative “evaluation [which] resulted in a loss of status or prestige without any material change in [plaintiffs] salary, position, or duties” is not considered an adverse employment action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).