A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation: A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document: A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/612506/a-society-without-a-name-v-commo... ↗

Full Text

1,299 chars

In interpreting the ADA, we must look not to unrelated labor statutes, but to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 515 F.3d 356, 362 (4th Cir.2008). Given that the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision is identical to Title VII’s, the standard laid out by the Supreme Court for purposes of Title VII controls in this ADA case.* See *353Penny v. United Parcel Service, 128 F.3d 408, 417 (6th Cir.1997); Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir.1997). And under that standard, the retraction of gratuitous benefits constitutes adverse action. See Thompson v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 650-51 (4th Cir.2002) (noting that Title VII retaliation encompasses “any retaliatory act” that “adversely affected ... benefits” (internal quotation omitted)); see also Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 605 F.3d 27, 36 (1st Cir.2010) (noting that Title VII “adverse employment actions” include the imposition of “a less distinguished title” or “a material loss in benefits” (internal quotation omitted)); Passer v. Am. Chem. Soc., 935 F.2d 322, 331 (D.C.Cir.1991) (rejecting argument that cancellation of a voluntary symposium was the withdrawal of a “mere ‘gratuity’ ” and thus incapable of constituting retaliation). IV.

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text