New Supreme Court Ruling Is a Big Win for Employees

A new ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court will make it much easier for many employees to prove an allegation of unlawful discrimination under Title VII.

The Court’s ruling washes away a rule, followed by many courts, that required Title VII claimants to show not just any harm but harm that is significant. This is an artificially high bar that the law’s language does not permit, the Court decided.

Instead, the Court said, Title VII plaintiffs need to show only that the challenged action resulted from discrimination and left them worse off than they were before – and not necessarily in a “significant” way.

The case was brought by Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who worked as a sergeant for the St. Louis Police Department.

New boss transfers police sergeant

Between 2008 and 2017, Muldrow was a plainclothes officer who investigated cases involving public corruption and human trafficking. In addition, she oversaw a gang unit and led a gun crimes unit.

She also had FBI credentials, a take-home vehicle, and the authority to pursue investigations outside of St. Louis.

A division commander heaped high praise on her, but a new commander later reassigned her to a uniformed job because, according to the Court’s decision, he wanted a man in the plainclothes position.

Unwelcome changes for employee

Muldrow’s rank, pay and benefits did not change after the transfer, but other things did.

For example:

• she stopped working with high-ranking officials on departmental priorities
• she started doing some patrol work
• she lost her FBI status and the car that came with it, and
• she stopped working a regular Monday through Friday schedule and began working a rotating schedule that included weekends.

Muldrow summed it up this way: “I went from straight days, weekends off with a take-home car and more visibility and responsibility within the department to a rotating schedule with few weekends off, assigned to . . . uniformed patrol,” with “responsibilities being limited to that of administrative work” and “supervising officers on patrol.”

Trek to Supreme Court begins

She sued to allege that the transfer was illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. A federal district court and federal appeals court both ruled against her on the basis that the transfer did not result in a significant change that produced a material employment disadvantage. The appeals court said she had experienced only “minor changes in working conditions,” while noting that she still maintained a supervisory role in the new position.

Translation: Even if there were things about the transfer that Muldrow didn’t like, they weren’t bad enough to violate Title VII.

The Supreme Court then agreed to consider the question of “whether an employee who challenges a transfer under Title VII must meet a heightened threshold of harm – be it dubbed significant, serious, or something similar.”

Supreme Court rules on Title VII

The High Court said the courts below in this case – and all other courts that have added this “significant harm” requirement in Title VII suits — have done so without adequate justification.

Title VII “imposes no such requirement,” it explained, and courts are not free to add one.

Instead, the statute bans discrimination against enumerated protected classes with respect to terms, conditions or privileges of employment, it said. And while the law’s language requires Muldrow to show there was some “disadvantageous” change, it does not force her to show the transfer produced significant harm, it ruled.

Many claimants have lost their Title VII claims because courts rewrote the statute to require significant harm, the Court said.

Those days are now over.

“To make out a Title VII discrimination claim,” the Court said, “a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.”

The court vacated the appeals court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Whether there is some level of harm that can be so slight as to be deemed de minimis remains to be seen. But make no mistake: The line has moved significantly in jurisdictions that imposed the “significant harm” requirement, and to a place that greatly favors employees.

Guidance for HR — and a final note

In practical terms, what does this ruling mean for employers?

Most immediately, it requires employers to more carefully scrutinize whether a forced transfer produces any negative consequences for the transferred employee.

And it’s not just major negative consequences to look for, like a salary cut or demotion.

Instead, employers should now ask additional, more nuanced questions while taking a holistic view of the changes that the move produced. How did the transfer affect the employee’s work schedule? Did the employee lose a company car? Did the change result in a longer commute time? Did the employee lose other employment perks?

Almost any negative consequence of a forced transfer, coupled with some evidence of discrimination based on membership in a protected class, now places all Title-VII covered employers squarely in the danger zone.

One final note: This case was about a job transfer, but the Court’s reasoning was based on Title VII text that generally bans discrimination with respect to all terms and conditions of employment. That means its reach will likely not be limited only to cases involving transfers.

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193 (U.S. 4/17/24).