Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that changes in job responsibilities and underutilization of skills are not adverse unless accompanied by materially adverse changes in employment such as demotion or loss of wages
• recognizing that a “change in job responsibilities” and “underutilization of Plaintiff’s skills” were not adverse employment actions unless “accompanied by materially adverse changes in employment, such as demotion or loss of wages”
• finding that the use of a racial epithet by a supervisor alone was insufficient to establish that any hostile work environment was the result of racial discrimination
• explaining that “[the] [d]efendants’ alleged micro-management of [the] [p]laintiff [cannot] constitute an adverse employment action” because “[e]xcessive scrutiny, without more, does not constitute an adverse employment action” (citation omitted)
• finding “suspension and delay in return to work” qualify as an adverse employment action
• noting a temporary reduction in salary is an adverse employment action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).