“Adverse Employment Action” Explained: Guidance for California Employers

Introduction

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employee bringing a discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim must prove they suffered an adverse employment action.

Employers often assume this term refers only to obvious and significant moves like firing or demoting someone. But California courts have taken a more expansive view: a wide range of decisions that materially affect an employee’s work, career advancement, or job conditions may qualify. This broader definition makes understanding the concept essential for employers building compliant workplaces and defending against claims.

What Counts as an Adverse Employment Action?

California courts have explained that adverse employment actions are not limited to termination or demotion. Instead, the definition covers the “entire spectrum of employment actions that are reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect an employee’s job performance or opportunity for advancement.” (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1053–1054.)

In practice, this includes:

• Significant changes in job duties or responsibilities.

• Transfers or reassignments with materially worse conditions.

• Denials of promotions, raises, or promised training opportunities.

• Issuing undeserved negative performance reviews.

• Placing an employee on involuntary administrative leave.

• Substantial reductions in work hours or staff support.

• Even when an individual act might appear minor, courts will look at the totality of circumstances. A pattern of conduct, taken together, can amount to an adverse employment action. (Yanowitz, supra.)

What Does Not Count?

California law makes clear that not every workplace slight is actionable. Courts have drawn the line between material, career-impacting changes and mere annoyances. Examples that typically do not qualify include:

• General criticism or single negative comments without tangible impact. (Light v. Dept. of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 92.)

• Workplace ostracism or social slights. (Kelley v. Conco Cos. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 191, 212.)

• An unfulfilled threat of adverse action that is never carried out. (Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 855, 879.)

• Actions that are “merely contrary to the employee’s preferences” but not materially harmful. (Malais v. L.A. City Fire Dept. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 350, 357.)

The Role of Context

FEHA cases are fact-specific. What qualifies as an adverse employment action will always depend on the circumstances:

• A lateral transfer without pay or benefit changes might still be adverse if it significantly reduces advancement prospects. (Patten v. Grant Joint Union High Sch. Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378.)

• Hostile actions may be subtle on their own, but considered together they may reveal a damaging pattern. (Yanowitz, supra.)

• Placing an employee on involuntary leave or reducing promised hours can be materially adverse. (Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 352, 367.)

Practical Guidance for Employers

Because the standard goes beyond termination and demotion, employers should approach all employment decisions with care:

• Document decisions clearly: Maintain legitimate, well-supported reasons for reviews, transfers, and reassignments.

• Treat actions consistently: Apply policies evenly across employees to avoid claims of targeting.

• Train supervisors: Teach managers that even subtle acts—when persistent—can rise to the level of adverse employment actions.

• Pause before job changes: Evaluate whether a reassignment, altered schedule, or removal of responsibilities could materially harm an employee’s career prospects.

• Consider the pattern: A series of seemingly small actions may be more damaging than one obvious event.

Bottom Line

California courts interpret “adverse employment action” broadly to ensure employees are protected not only from firings and demotions, but also from decisions and patterns of conduct that meaningfully harm their careers. For business owners, this means liability can arise from subtle workplace decisions that might not initially seem significant.

Employers who focus on consistency, fairness, and clear documentation reduce the risk that routine management decisions will later be portrayed as unlawful adverse employment actions.

Citations

Gov. Code § 12940(a), (h); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (2005); Patten v. Grant Joint Union H.S. Dist., 134 Cal.App.4th 1378 (2005); Wysinger v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal.App.4th 413 (2007); Whitehall v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 17 Cal.App.5th 352 (2017); Light v. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 14 Cal.App.5th 75 (2017); Kelley v. Conco Cos., 196 Cal.App.4th 191 (2011); Malais v. L.A. City Fire Dept., 150 Cal.App.4th 350 (2007); Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc., 24 Cal.App.5th 855 (2018); Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal.App.4th 1047 (2011); Simers v. L.A. Times Commc’ns, LLC, 18 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2018).