11th Circuit: Exposure to Subjectively Unpleasant Weather Conditions and Deprivation of Office Amenities is not Adverse Employment Action
1 min read
Sep 30, 2014
Henry McCone worked for several years as a non-driving customer service associate. His job duties involved opening received mail and preparing outgoing mail. Pitney Bowes transferred him to a position requiring him to drive correspondence and files between sites in the Orlando area. The result was McCone had to endure unfavorable weather conditions and lost regular access to office amenities, such as air-conditioning, restrooms, a microwave oven, and a refrigerator. Two women who also served as customer service associates were neither trained nor required to work as a driver.
McCone received a negative performance evaluation after complaining of the reassignment and therefore sued Pitney Bowes for gender discrimination under Title VII, which requires a plaintiff to prove he suffered an adverse employment action. McCone alleged the adverse weather and lost office amenities constituted an adverse employment action. The district court disagreed and dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. McCone appealed but the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
The appeals court held, as a matter of law, that the changed conditions were not actionable adverse changes under Title VII because a reasonable person would consider them ordinary tribulations of the workplace. The appeals court noted the alleged negative review did not save his claim because he could not allege this review lead to any negative consequences.
This decision, McCone v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., No. 14-11119 (11th Cir. September 5, 2014), confirms that employers retain flexibility in staffing decisions, but implies that a transfer to a less desirable position may lead to potential claims which will survive a motion to dismiss if the employee does not succeed at the new position and is disciplined as a result. Employers should carefully evaluate and document the circumstances any such transfers to ensure that, if the employee does not succeed in the new position, then the employer will be posed to eliminate any such claims on summary judgment.
Topics
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

