Lewis appealed that decision and won, in part. This Court reversed and remanded as to her gender discrimination claim against both Defendants and her retaliation claim against the City. Lewis v. City of Chicago ("Lewis I"), 496 F.3d 645, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2007). At the subsequent trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Williams and the City on both claims.

Both require the plaintiff to show that she experienced a materially adverse employment action. Rhodes v. Illinois Dep't of Transp., 359 F.3d 498, 504 (7th Cir. 2004); accord Lewis v. City of Chi., 496 F.3d 645, 652-53 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs claim retaliation, too, which also requires an adverse employment action.

This Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims, and Plaintiff appealed. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 428 F. Supp. 2d 783 (N.D. Ill. 2006). The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, but remanded for a trial on Plaintiff's gender discrimination claims against both Defendants, and her retaliation claim against the City. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2007). Following an eight-day jury trial, on December 21, 2007, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Defendants. (R. 208, Minute Entry.) Plaintiff now moves for a new trial on various grounds.

A prima facie case of discrimination includes four elements, among them that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action. See Andrews v. CBOCS West, Inc., 743 F.3d 230, 234-35 (7th Cir. 2014); Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). This element helps to distinguish meritorious claims of discrimination from lawsuits about trivial personnel matters.

To be actionable, an employment action “must be a significant change in employment status ... or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Lewis v. City of Chi., 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). Adverse employment actions are often “economic injuries,” Markel v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 276 F.3d 906, 911 (7th Cir.2002), but also “extend beyond readily quantifiable losses.”

,]” it must ascertain whether a genuine issue remains for trial. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2007).

Some examples of adverse employment actions include: termination or suspension, demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, denial of a raise or fringe benefits, less distinguishable title, material loss of benefits, significantly reduced material responsibilities, and unbearable changes in job conditions such as a hostile work environment. Atanus, 520 F.3d at 677; see also Lewis v. City of Chi., 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007) (grouping adverse employment actions into three categories).

For an employment action to be actionable, it must be a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibility, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits." Lewis v. City of Chi., 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell v. E.P.A., 232 F.3d 546, 555 (7th Cir. 2000)). 4.1.1.

To meet this standard, a plaintiff must "demonstrate a materially adverse employment action that resulted from the alleged discrimination." Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Rhodes v. Ill. Dep't of Transp., 359 F.3d 498, 504 (7th Cir. 2004)). "[A] materially adverse employment action is one which visits upon a plaintiff 'a significant change in employment status.'"

If overtime is "a significant and expected part of an employee's annual earnings," withholding it may be an adverse employment action. Formella v. Brennan, 817 F.3d 503, 511 (7th Cir. 2016); Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). In contrast, when extra pay is in the employer's discretion and only awarded sporadically, it is not an adverse employment action.