By Robert Teachout
Changes in job duties and increased responsibilities that an employee claimed made his job “untenable” were not sufficient to be an adverse action under the ADA or the ADEA, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled. The court held that the increased duties did not constitute a material change in the terms or conditions of his employment, and therefore no adverse employment action had taken place. The 8th Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer on all charges. The case is Sellers v. Deere & Co. aka John Deere Co., 2015 WL 4033501 (8th Cir., July 2, 2015).
The Facts
Michael Sellers started working for Deere & Co. in 1979. In 2001, his manager transferred Sellers without changing his pay or benefits. Although Sellers and his manager initially worked well together, the relationship soon deteriorated. Sellers reported overhearing the manager make disparaging remarks about older workers. The manager also began to have problems with Sellers’ work, saying that Sellers’ had difficulty interacting with others and suffered from “analysis paralysis.”
In August 2003, Sellers began reporting to a new manager, who answered to his old manager, and his job duties began to be increased, including covering the work of other employees, supervising three people and being assigned numerous last-minute tasks. He told his new manager that he was unsure of taking on new responsibilities because he had been struggling with depression. She warned him not to tell the old manager about the depression.
In late 2004 and early 2005, Sellers made requests for accommodations because he was struggling with mental health issues that affected his concentration and short-term memory; the requests were denied. Later, Seller was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome arising in part from stress at work. On March 1, 2005, he took medical leave and never returned to work.
Court’s Analysis
To prevail on an ADA or ADEA discrimination or retaliation claim, an employee must suffer an adverse employment action. An “adverse employment action” means a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage, but does not always involve termination or a decrease in benefits or pay. An increased workload that materially changes an employee’s duties may count, such as when an employee assumes the responsibilities of a manager without a pay increase. However, not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.
The 8th Circuit found that the increased job duties that Sellers complained of did not materially change the terms or conditions of his employment. His position was described as one that was fluid and dynamic with evolving priorities. By Seller’s own testimony, changing duties were to be expected. Although the job was fast-paced and potentially stressful, the court noted “that was the job Sellers signed up for.”
Employer Takeaway
“Other duties as assigned” can only go so far, especially when employees take on significantly more responsibility or increased workload. When employees are assigned new duties and responsibilities, employers should evaluate whether the terms and conditions of employment have been materially changed.
Employers should periodically audit employees’ actual tasks and responsibilities compared to their job descriptions, and should make adjustments as needed in pay, job title or work assignments. However merely changing or increasing an employee’s job duties does not necessarily constitute a material change that may be the basis for an adverse employment action claim.