context: However, the record also demonstrates that plaintiff was reassigned from a route suitable for "experienced couriers" to a route that did not require experience and was a "back buster." Moreover, plaintiff presented evidence that the reassignment required him to drive a truck, which plaintiff describes as the "the worst truck in the station" because of its poor transmission, lap-belt seat belts and lack of shelving. Dep. Grosso at 97. For these reasons, a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when he was reassigned to route 202.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 1999 WL 673062, at *6
citation_a.parenthetical: plaintiff suffered adverse employment action when her job responsibilities were reduced and her office location changed, even though plaintiff received the same salary and benefits
citation_a.sentence: See Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2417 (reassignment of job duties was “materially adverse” for the purposes of Title VII retaliation claim where plaintiff was reassigned from a job that required “more qualifications” to a job that was “more arduous and dirtier.”); see also Voorhees, 1999 WL 673062 at *6 (plaintiff suffered adverse employment action when her job responsibilities were reduced and her office location changed, even though plaintiff received the same salary and benefits).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 126 S.Ct. 2417, 2417
citation_b.parenthetical: reassignment of job duties was "materially adverse" for the purposes of Title VII retaliation claim where plaintiff was reassigned from a job that required "more qualifications" to a job that was "more arduous and dirtier."
citation_b.sentence: See Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2417 (reassignment of job duties was “materially adverse” for the purposes of Title VII retaliation claim where plaintiff was reassigned from a job that required “more qualifications” to a job that was “more arduous and dirtier.”); see also Voorhees, 1999 WL 673062 at *6 (plaintiff suffered adverse employment action when her job responsibilities were reduced and her office location changed, even though plaintiff received the same salary and benefits).