By: Ty Hyderally, Esq., Nichole Nunes, Esq., Maya Patel

April 17, 2024, marks a significant victory for workers and the advancement of workplace equality. The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from making discriminatory decisions regarding lateral transfers without requiring employees to show that the discrimination caused a “significant” disadvantage. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., 144 S. Ct. 967 (2024).

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a distinguished officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division, found herself transferred to a different unit against her wishes. This transfer occurred after a new commander, Captain Michael Deeba, took charge of the Intelligence Division. Despite Muldrow’s exemplary record and the outgoing commander’s praise of her as a “workhorse” and a reliable sergeant, Deeba replaced her with a male officer, citing a better fit for the division’s “very dangerous” work. This reassignment to the Fifth District significantly altered her job conditions. While her rank and pay remained the same, her responsibilities shifted dramatically. She moved from a position involving high-level investigations and collaboration with federal agencies to a role focused on neighborhood patrol supervision, losing her FBI credentials and an unmarked take-home vehicle in the process. Moreover, her work schedule became less regular, involving rotating shifts and weekend work.

Muldrow sued the City of St. Louis under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination concerning the “terms [or] conditions” of her employment. Initially, both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claim, adhering to a precedent that required showing a “materially significant disadvantage” resulting from the transfer. They concluded that since Muldrow’s rank, salary, and benefits remained unchanged, and because her new role still involved supervisory duties, the transfer did not meet this heightened injury standard.

The Supreme Court, however, disapproved of this stringent requirement. Justice Kagan, delivering the opinion of the Court, clarified that an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, but need not demonstrate that the injury meets a significance threshold. Title VII’s text does not stipulate such a high bar for proving discriminatory practices related to job transfers.

Justice Kagan, writing for the unanimous Court, emphasized that the text of Title VII does not demand that employees prove significant harm to establish a claim. She noted, “Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test. Title VII’s text nowhere establishes that high bar”. This interpretation aligns with the statute’s broad purpose of eliminating discrimination in employment. The Court further held, “To demand ‘significance’ is to add words—and significant words, as it were—to the statute Congress enacted”. As Title VII’s text does not stipulate such a high bar for proving discriminatory practices related to job transfers, Muldrow’s allegations, if properly supported and preserved, met the Title VII standard. Her loss of high-ranking responsibilities, the unmarked vehicle, and the shift to a less prestigious role with irregular hours constituted sufficient harm concerning the terms and conditions of her employment. This perspective reinforces the idea that Title VII is meant to protect employees from all forms of discriminatory practices, regardless of their perceived magnitude.

The ruling in Muldrow overturns previous appellate court decisions that imposed a higher burden on employees. This shift is expected to lead to more successful claims under Title VII, as employees can now challenge discriminatory job transfers without the need to demonstrate a materially significant disadvantage. “Today’s Supreme Court decision is an enormous win for workers. Courts have too often dismissed cases under the ‘materially’ or ‘significantly’ adverse standard when employees have meritorious discrimination claims,” said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “This heightened standard contradicts the statute’s text and undermines Congress’s plan of eliminating discrimination in employment in passing Title VII”. Moreover, this will pave the way for a more nuanced understanding of workplace discrimination and reinforce the importance of fair treatment across all employment practices. Gillian Wilcox, deputy director for litigation at the ACLU of Missouri, echoed this sentiment: “Today’s ruling strengthens the protections from discrimination intended by Title VII by solidifying workers’ right to have and experience consistent expectations on the privileges and conditions of their employment”.

En nuestra firma hablamos español. 

This blog is for informational purposes only.  It does not constitute legal advice, and may not reasonably be relied upon as such.  If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice with regard to your particular set of facts.  This blog may constitute attorney advertising.  This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state of jurisdiction.