In this case, the plaintiff’s failure to challenge the defendant employer’s summary judgment arguments probably contributed more to his defeat than establishing a new principal as to what does or does not constitute an “adverse employment action.” Avino v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136772, 3:13CV360 (JCH)(Sept. 29, 2014).
The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the case, citing that the plaintiff’s counsel raised “only the skimpiest opposition” to Stop & Shop’s arguments.
This included the defendant’s argument, with no opposition, that the “adverse employment action” of the suspension served upon the plaintiff did not qualify since the plaintiff never served the suspension but took vacation and sick days and an extended leave of absence during the period in question.