Luox

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent, in part.

Luox’s .affidavit and testimony suffice to establish a genuine issue of fact about whether he suffered a significant change in his employment status on account of rejecting his supervisor’s sexual overtures. 1 He says in his declaration that after he made it clear to his supervisor that he would never leave his wife, his duties were reassigned, he was excluded from committees he had been assigned to, and his leave usage began to be questioned even though he continued to follow what had been established policy on leave. Also, Luox dedared he was docked pay for his absence when his mother die d, even though he had obtained approval for the leave.

Luox also established a genuine issue of fact on Title VII retaliation claim, and on whether his employer’s reasons for its actions were pretexts for discrimination. 2 His declaration and testimony, if believed by the jury, would establish that the treatment of his leave changed after and because of his protected complaints and rejection of his supervisors sexual overtures. Also, Luox indicated that the same work performance that was satisfactory when his supervisor…

MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Luox’s *697 claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII. Even accepting Luox’s allegations as true, he did not suffer “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 , 118 S.Ct. 2257 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). Therefore, he cannot establish a prima facie case under a theory of quid pro quo sexual harassment. The readjustment of his job assignments and similar job changes mentioned by the dissent do not constitute tangible employment actions. See id. (indicating that only a “materially adverse change” constitutes a tangible employment action; a “bruised ego,” demotion without material changes, and reassignment to a more inconvenient job do not constitute such a change).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Luox’s claim that his supervisor retaliated against him for complaining about the alleged sexual harassment. Although Luox demonstrated that he engaged in a…