April 18, 2024
Tara Paulson
Rembolt Ludtke Employment & Labor Practice Group
On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discriminatory job transfers even if they don’t result in significant harm. As we know, Title VII makes it an “unlawful employment practice for an employer” to “discriminate against any individual” based on the individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” with respect to the “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
Jatonya Muldrow was a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department. She filed a lawsuit against the department, alleging she was the victim of sex discrimination because she was involuntarily transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a patrol position because her supervisor wanted to hire a man for her job. Muldrow argued that the transfer dented her career prospects because it came with less prestige, fewer responsibilities, perks, and distanced her from those in the highest positions in the department. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (which includes Nebraska) ruled that Muldrow’s transfer had not resulted in a materially significant disadvantage for her and found for the police department. Muldrow appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While the majority of circuits agree that a Title VII discrimination claim requires an injury to the plaintiff, the circuits vary in the degree of harm that is required to be shown. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case, the justices sought the Biden administration’s views. The Biden administration urged the justices to grant review and the U.S. Solicitor General told the court that the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had “no foundation in Title VII’s text, structure or purpose.”
The U.S. Supreme Court held that to make out a Title VII discrimination claim, someone transferred to a new position must show some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. However, the transferee does not have to show that the harm incurred was “significant” or “serious” or “substantial” or some other similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage must exceed a heightened bar.
Despite the opinion being unanimous, the justices disagreed on whether their decision resulted in a substantive or consequential change in the law. Some analysts suggest that the case eases the pathway for Title VII suits and constitutes a big win for workplace equality. At this point, we are not sure the ruling has such sweeping ramifications. Nevertheless, know that our team is keeping up-to-date on the latest legal developments impacting employers. A final interesting note from this case is the justices asked several questions during oral argument focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. While the opinion focused on the narrower issue of workplace job transfers, it will be interesting to see how the nation’s highest court grapples with and addresses other employment actions in which the employee does not suffer any material harm in future cases.
This article is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Those requiring legal advice are encouraged to consult with their attorney.
