SCOTUS Decision Lowers Threshold for Discrimination Lawsuits for Job Transfers
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling will make it easier for employees to bring discrimination claims against their employers for job transfers and other lateral job changes. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the high court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discriminatory job transfers even if the transfer does not cause “significant harm” to the employee. In ruling that an employee need only show “some harm” with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, the court may have opened the door to a broader scope of bias lawsuits.
The Case
Sgt. Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a longtime St. Louis Police Department employee, claims she was unwillingly transferred from one job to another because she is a woman. The department moved Muldrow from its Intelligence Division, where she worked on high-profile criminal investigations, held a deputized role with the FBI, and enjoyed perks that included a take-home vehicle, weekends off, and access to high-ranking department officials. In her new role, she was tasked with supervising the day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers. While her rank and salary remained the same, Muldrow lost her FBI credentials, vehicle access, and weekends off. She also claimed the new role was less “prestigious” and provided less opportunity for networking.
Muldrow brought a lawsuit alleging sex-based discrimination in violation of Title VII, which makes it illegal 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.”
The trial court sided with the City of St. Louis and granted summary judgment, holding that Muldrow failed to show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage” because it “did not result in a diminution to her title, salary, or benefits” and had caused “only minor changes in working conditions.” The decision was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, based on its heightened standard that a job-related action must cause “materially significant” harm in order to trigger the protections of Title VII.
The Court’s Ruling
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, rejecting the legal standards that this and other appellate courts have applied when evaluating Title VII claims in the context of job transfers. In its majority opinion, the court stated that the language of the law does not support the “significant harm” requirement.
“To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. “What the transferee does not have to show, according to the relevant text, is that the harm incurred was ‘significant.’ Or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar.” “Muldrow need show only some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions,” Justice Kagan wrote.
What the Decision Means for Employers
Prior to this decision, many courts routinely dismissed workplace discrimination cases that did not involve adverse impacts such as loss of a job, promotion, pay, or benefits. But this decision appears to pave the way for a broader range of discrimination lawsuits relating to job transfers and, perhaps, other job changes that fall shy of termination, demotion, or decreased compensation. By holding that the employee only needs to show “some harm,” employee-members of a protected class may only need to demonstrate that a change in their work schedule, duties, or location was enough harm to justify a suit while also alleging discrimination. This is particularly concerning because successful litigants claiming Title VII are entitled to attorneys’ fees, even when their actual damages are slight, and can recover emotional distress damages. With a lowered threshold on what harm makes a case actionable, an employer may need to focus the defense of the suit on other elements and know that the possible exposure is higher.
Employers can no longer rely on a lack of financial or other significant impact on an employee as a defense to discrimination claims. Therefore, employers should carefully evaluate all employment actions, such as transfers or changes in duties, responsibilities, or hours, before making such changes, even when the change does not result in a loss of pay or other tangible benefits. Employers are wise to document a legal, non-discriminatory justification for all these employment actions.
Joshua M. Auxier, a partner at FLB Law in Westport, Conn., is a litigator with nearly two decades of experience defending clients in employment law matters. Contact Josh at auxier@flb.law or 203.635.2200. For more information about FLB Law, click here.