Supreme Court Makes Ruling on Title VII Case
Posted on May 02, 2024
Important takeaways: The United States Supreme Court established that for an employee to prevail on a Title VII claim when they have been transferred from one position to another, they only have to show some harm was done. The previous standard was that an employee had to show significant harm was done to their employment or benefits for a transfer to violate Title VII, but that standard is now lowered.
Facts: From 2008 to 2017 Jatonya Muldrow worked as an officer for the St. Louis Police Department in the Intelligence Division. In 2017, the Intelligence Division commander asked to transfer Muldrow out of her unit so she could be replaced with a male officer. Muldrow maintained her rank and pay but her responsibilities, perks, and schedule changed. Muldrow no longer worked with high-ranking officers and instead was supervising neighborhood patrol officers. She also lost access to her unmarked vehicle she could take home and had a less regular schedule that included weekend shifts.
Muldrow sued the city of St. Louis (the City) under Title VII, alleging that the City had discriminated against her based on sex when they moved her from the Intelligence Division. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that in order to succeed on her claim, Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant” disadvantage, and she had not met that burden.
The United States Supreme Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm to a condition of employment. The harm does not have to be significant. Title VII prohibits employers from refusing to hire, discharging, or discriminating against any individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on sex. The Court held that when an employee is transferred from one position to another and alleges it is for a discriminatory reason, they do not have to show the harm incurred was significant. The employee only needs to show that some aspect of their employment was harmed.
The Court sent the case back down to the circuit court with the standard that an employee who has been transferred from one position to another needs to show only some injury in her employment terms or conditions, not a significant injury.
What this means: If an employee is transferred from one position to another and brings a suit under Title VII, they must only show that their employment or benefits were harmed. They do not have to prove the harm to their employment was significant. If you are transferring an employee from one position to another, they may succeed under Title VII if this transfer causes them harm. Employers need to consider all aspects of employment including schedule and benefits when transferring an employee from one position to another.
About this case: Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Missouri, U.S. Supreme Court, April 17, 2024. Read it here.
As you consider these and other issues, we recommend you speak with your school lawyer or contact Bea, Megan, Beth, Kevin, and Kali at 406-542-1300 to discuss these issues.
