On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193. The Court’s decision clarifies that when an employee challenges a job transfer as discriminatory, they only need to prove that they sustained “some” harm, not “significant” or “serious” harm.
KingSpry’s Employment Law Chair, Avery E. Smith, Esq., and Employment Law Attorney, Sarah Modrick. Esq., LLM, review the facts of the case and what the Court’s decision means for employee protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).
Facts of the Case
From 2008 to 2017, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow (Plaintiff) worked as a plainclothes officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s specialized Intelligence Division. Her employment duties included investigating public corruption and human trafficking cases. Muldrow was also a Task Force Officer with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
In 2017, the new Intelligence Division commander asked the Department to transfer Muldrow out of the unit so that she could be replaced with a male officer. The Department approved the transfer and Muldrow was reassigned to a uniformed job.
While her rank and pay remained the same, Muldrow’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule changed.
Claims Against Employer
Muldrow filed suit against the Department under Title VII, alleging that she suffered sex discrimination with respect to the terms or conditions of her employment.
The District Court found in favor of the Department. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Muldrow could not show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage,” because her transfer “did not result in the diminution to her title, salary or benefits” and caused “only minor changes in working conditions.”
Issue
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions absent a determination that the transfer led to a significant disadvantage.
Holding
While previous courts held that similar job transfers must result in a “significant” employment disadvantage, the U.S. Supreme Court disapproved such approach. The Court held that Muldrow did not need to show that her injury “satisfies a significance test.”
The Court wrote that “the text of Title VII imposes no such requirement.”
“To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment… the transferee does not have to show that the harm incurred was “significant” or otherwise exceeded some heightened bar.” See Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Title VII Protections
In its opinion, the Court cited to Title VII, which makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Outcome
The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
Key Takeaways for Employers
While the Court’s decision in Muldrow leans in favor of employees, it does not necessarily suggest that employees will prevail on all discrimination claims. As emphasized by the Court, Title VII requires a showing that the employer took the alleged adverse action against the employee for discriminatory reasons.
Employers must understand that discrimination is strictly prohibited, namely on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), or national origin.
Employers should review employment practices to ensure that their procedures for transferring or reassigning employees do not constitute discrimination.
Employers with questions or concerns regarding their employment practices should contact their legal counsel or KingSpry’s Employment Law Team.
