Is putting worker on paid leave grounds for retaliation suit?

Federal courts haven’t exactly been clear on what qualifies as an “adverse action” on an employer’s part when it come to retaliation claims. So a recent ruling in Connecticut comes as good news.
A federal judge dismissed the case of an employee who claimed being placed on paid leave was retaliation for complaining about the outcome of a workplace incident.
The case involved Brian Cooper, an employee of the Connecticut Department of Corrections who was out on workers’ comp while recovering from back surgery.
During his absence, a co-worker drew a cartoon depicting Cooper wearing a yarmulke, holding a fishing rod and placing a bag of ice on his back. The cartoon was passed around the workplace.
Cooper, who is Jewish, was shown the cartoon by a friend. He filed a complaint with his employer, alleging that the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
The employer investigated, determined the drawing violated the organization’s religious discrimination policy, and suspended the co-worker for five days without pay.
Not serious enough
When he returned to work, Cooper contacted HR to say he wasn’t satisfied with the severity of the co-worker’s punishment. He told the HR rep he “had no friends here” and that “they (co-workers) are going to try to take me down.”
Cooper added, according to the HR rep, that he’d had “extensive weapons training” and that he was feeling “very tightly wound right now and extremely paranoid.”
The HR rep, concerned about potential workplace violence, went to upper management. Cooper was placed on paid administrative leave pending tests to determine if he should come back to work. He continued to collect his regular salary.
After two months, he was allowed to return to work. His job title and pay level remained unchanged. After about three months, he again left the job because of his back problems and went on workers’ comp.
Retaliation claim
Cooper filed suit, charging that the employer had retaliated against him for questioning the handling of the cartoon incident. The “adverse action”?
Placing him on paid leave.
The federal district court found in favor of the company. The employer had applied pre-existing disciplinary policies in a reasonable way, and it properly responded to what it saw as a potential threat to workplace safety.
What’s more, Cooper hadn’t suffered any negative consequences from the paid leave, the judge ruled.
Cite: Cooper v. Connecticut Department of Corrections. For a look at the full court decision, go here.