[klyrs]

Some real doozies in that ruling

> Increased surveillance and discipline, whether warranted or not, do not constitute a material adverse change in the terms of employment in the discrimination context because those actions do not “constitute[ ] 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.” White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 402 (6th Cir. 2008).

So... you can actually have a policy that members of a protected class are subject to additional surveillance and discipline without cause, so long as you don't fire them or take away their benefits?