Supreme Court Expands Protections Under Title VII For Discriminatory Job Transfers
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis which expanded employee protections under The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and opened the floodgates for potential litigation. By way of background, Title VII prohibits discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Muldrow involved a female police sergeant who was transferred from a specialized Intelligence Division to a position that was administrative in nature, less prestigious, and inconsistent in scheduling. Notably, the job transfer did not affect the employee’s pay, title, or rank. The female sergeant alleged that no male sergeants were ever transferred out of the Intelligence Division and that a male sergeant replaced her. Accordingly, the female sergeant alleged that she was discriminated against under Title VII based upon her sex. The District Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the transfer did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action because it did not result in a “materially significant disadvantage” to the employee.
On appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the “significant” disadvantage test applied by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as other Circuit Courts, was proper (i.e., whether there is a right to sue under Title VII if the alleged adverse action does not cause “significant harm” such as a pay cut, demotion or termination). The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the standard applied by the Eighth Circuit and found that a plaintiff who alleges that a transfer is discriminatory must simply show “some harm” from the transfer, but need not show that the harm was “significant,” “material,” or “serious.” Based upon this new standard, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This ruling represents a significant change with respect to the application of Title VII to discrimination claims based upon transfers. The standard articulated by the Supreme Court is far less burdensome than the “significant harm” standard applied by the Eighth Circuit and will result in many transfer-based discrimination claims proceeding to trial (as opposed to being dismissed either at the Motion to Dismiss or Summary Judgment stages of the litigation).
Despite this new standard, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that to prevail on the merits a plaintiff must still show that his/her employer carried out the transfer with discriminatory intent based upon a characteristic protected under Title VII. For this reason, it is imperative that employers document the legitimate business reasons for all transfers if needed as a defense at a later date. In addition, although the Supreme Court did not specifically address how its ruling would affect Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs, the new standard has the potential to open the door to an influx of reverse discrimination claims. These possibilities will play themselves out as the lower courts begin to apply the Supreme Court’s new standard.
For questions regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion or any other labor and employment matter, please contact any of the attorneys at Hoffman & Hlavac. To stay updated on key labor and employment law developments that affect your workplace, be sure to subscribe to this blog and follow us on social media!