Pedroza-Pineda v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that such warnings were “trivial harms” outside the scope of Title VII
• holding that oral and written warnings do not constitute adverse employment actions
• finding oral and written warning did not constitute adverse actions for purposes of retaliation claim
• “[O]ral and written warnings do not amount to materially adverse conduct” required in a retaliation claim.
• \[W]e note that oral and written warnings do not amount to materially adverse conduct.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).