When claiming retaliation for pursuing a workplace discrimination claim, plaintiffs must show that they experienced an “adverse employment action” as a result of the exercise of their statutory rights.

Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Washington) adopted a broad definition of “adverse employment action” that should make it easier for a plaintiff to allege retaliation.

In Ray v. Henderson, the appeals court held that an “adverse employment action” is “adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity.”

The court rejected the employer’s belief that only “ultimate employment actions,” such as hiring, firing, promoting and demoting, constitute adverse action. Rather, the court agreed with five other circuits and the EEOC in adopting the broadened definition.

As a result, the Ray plaintiff suffered adverse employment action when his employer, the U. S. Postal Service, eliminated meetings, eliminated a flextime policy, instituted a workplace “lock-down,” and cut his salary. The court considered these actions to form the basis of a retaliation claim.