A federal appeals court has reinstated a retaliation claim against a Virginia school board for allegedly refusing to remove a letter of reprimand from an employee’s file.

Kathleen Munive, who was an employment specialist for the Falls Church, Virginia-based Fairfax County School Board, told her assistant before she took a pre-approved one-week vacation in 2006 that she should be called if any issues arose, according to court papers in Tuesday’s ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, in Kathleen Munive v. Fairfax County School Board, Debra Reeder; Kevin North; Jack Dale; Phyllis Pajardo.

Although the school board allegedly never contacted her, she later received a letter of reprimand for issues that arose during her vacation, according to her complaint. She was later placed on administrative leave.

Ms. Munive subsequently became an “English speakers of other languages” teacher and was told if she received a satisfactory one-year evaluation, the reprimand letter would be taken out upon her request, according to the complaint.

Although she received the satisfactory evaluation, the school board never removed the reprimand letter despite at least seven formal requests, according to the complaint. She alleged she was denied two assistant principal positions, as well as interviews for other positions, because of the reprimand in her file.

Ms. Munive filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in July 2007. In June 2013, she filed a second EEOC complaint alleging the defendants’ decision to keep the reprimand letter in her file constituted retaliation for her prior complaint.

Ms. Munive filed suit against the board in U.S. District Court in Alexandria in August 2016 on charges including retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court dismissed the case.

On appeal, a three-judge appeals court panel unanimously reinstated Ms. Munive’s retaliation charge. Ms. Munive “alleged that the failure to remove the reprimand letter cost her a promotion, and we have held that the denial of a promotion constitutes an adverse action under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision,” said the ruling.

“A reasonable employee could well be dissuaded from opposing unlawful conduct if she knows that her opportunities for promotion could be lost by her employer refusing to remove a reprimand as promised, because she engaged in protected activity,” said the ruling.

“We conclude that the denial of Munive’s request to remove the reprimand letter constituted a discrete act of retaliation,” the ruling said in remanding the case for further proceedings.