In drafting compliance policies, corporations are often careful to go above and beyond what the law requires, and to make their policies explicit in doing so, lest a violation of the policy be considered to be necessarily a violation of the law. This issue arose recently in Oliver v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-0943 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013). The plaintiff and four other employees filed an internal complaint against their supervisor for gender discrimination. The employer conducted an internal investigation and found that the supervisor had violated the company’s anti-discrimination and retaliation policies. The plaintiff’s prior good performance rating was restored, and she was asked to resume her full duties. Plaintiff declined to do so, contending she had been promised a fresh start elsewhere in the company, and the company ultimately deemed her to have resigned. Plaintiff brought a discrimination suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the company moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff argued that that because the company had admitted a violation of its antidiscrimination policies, it had effectively conceded that a violation of the law occurred. The court rejected this argument, as the company had demonstrated – and plaintiff did not dispute – that the company’s policies set a standard that was higher than that set by the law. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she had suffered an adverse employment action, and granted summary judgment for the company.