Strong Is. Contr. Corp. v. Padilla

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “reprimands[,]” “negative evaluations[,]” “threat of job loss[,]” and “threats of suspensions without pay” were not an adverse employment action—even considered in the aggregate
• concluding that because plaintiff had not alleged that the reprimand affected the terms and conditions of employment, the reprimand did not constitute an adverse employment action
• concluding that because plaintiff had not alleged that the reprimand and threats of suspension affected the terms and conditions of employment, they did not constitute adverse employment actions
• explaining that an employer’s conduct constitutes an adverse employment action if it “negatively affects an employee’s salary, title, position, or job duties”
• concluding that Plaintiffs did not establish that they suffered an adverse employment action because they did not allege “that the reprimands or the threats of suspension and job loss affected the terms and conditions of their employment or their status as employees.”
• noting that plaintiff’s request for a special meeting with a public official—one of the members of the govern- ing body of the county—indicated that his speech was public in na- ture

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).