When is an employment action sufficiently adverse to constitute retaliation?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant so as to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. This includes actions not directly related to employment or that cause harm outside of the workplace.

The standard is an objective one that involves the following analysis:

Would the employer's actions have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant? There need not be a link between the challenged retaliatory action and the terms, conditions, or status of employment. An employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking actions not directly related to his employment or by causing him harm outside the workplace, as for example, by refusing contrary to FBI policy to investigate death threats against an agent and his wife, or by filing false criminal charges against a former employee who complained about discrimination.

Was there an injury or harm? The anti-retaliation provision protects an individual only from retaliation that produces an injury or harm. The materiality requirement separates significant from trivial harms. In this regard, context matters. The significance of any given act of retaliation will depend on the particular circumstances.

Were the employer's actions harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination? Normally, petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence.