A Recent Supreme Court Ruling Declared That Harm From a Job Transfer Need Not Be Significant to Violate Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law designed to ensure that all employees in the United States of America are treated fairly. This Act prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on their protected characteristics, including religion, sex, and color. Title VII promotes equal opportunities for everyone in the workplace. Over the years, this Act has been at the center of many legal debates and court cases. Title VII is critical when it comes to addressing employment discrimination claims. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court lowered the threshold that must be met to challenge a job transfer under Title VII. In the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court decided that even if a job transfer does not affect a worker’s rank and pay, it still constitutes discrimination if the transfer changes the worker’s conditions and job responsibilities. In other words, individuals claiming discrimination only need to prove any level of harm affecting their employment conditions.

About the Case

Sergeant Muldrow, the plaintiff in this case, worked in the Intelligence Division of the St. Louis PD from 2008 to 2017. In those years, Muldrow worked closely with top officials and handled high-profile cases. She investigated human trafficking and public corruption cases, oversaw the Gang Unit, and served as head of the Gun Crimes Unit. In 2017, there was a leadership change. The new Intelligence Division Commander asked that Sergeant Muldrow be transferred out of the Unit. The new Commander wanted to replace Sergeant Muldrow with a male police officer. The transfer was approved against the Sergeant’s wishes, and she was reassigned to another job in the Department’s Fifth District.

While Sergeant Muldrow’s rank and pay stayed the same in the new position, her schedule, responsibilities, and work perks changed. Muldrow began supervising the day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers. The Sergeant now had to work even on weekends, and she lost the car and FBI status that came with her previous position.

The Sergeant filed a lawsuit under Title VII, claiming that her transfer constituted sex discrimination. She argued that while her rank and pay remained the same, the transfer substantially altered her job duties, working conditions, and opportunities due to her sex. The District Court granted the City summary judgment. According to the court, Muldrow needed to prove that the transfer caused a “significant” change in her working conditions that produced a “material employment disadvantage.” The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit affirmed this decision. The Eighth Circuit stressed that the job transfer did not adversely affect her title, salary, or benefits but had instead caused a minor change in her working conditions.

However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declared that while a claimant in a discrimination case needs to show that they suffered “some harm,” that harm does not need to be “significant.” The Court emphasized that any discrimination impacting employment conditions, no matter how minor, should be actionable under Title VII.

Contact a California Employment Lawyer

If you have any questions or believe your rights under Title VII have been violated, contact a California employment lawyer.