On April 17, 2024, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Muldrow v. St. Louis that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires “some harm” in the job transfer context.
The Opinion
Background
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant employer “discriminate[d] against” her based on sex “with respect to” the “terms [or] conditions” of her employment in violation of Title VII. Specifically, the plaintiff, a female Sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department, alleged she was transferred to another unit, and replaced by a male, and that while her rank and pay remained the same, her responsibilities, perks, and schedule did not.The Eastern District of Missouri granted the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision holding that the plaintiff must, but could not in this case, prove that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage”; rather, the transfer only caused “minor” changes in her working conditions.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 30 F.4th680, 688 (8th Cir. 2022).
Title VII Standard
Title VII provides that it is unlawful for a private employer or a state or local government “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.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).Several courts have interpreted the statute to require that a transfer subject an individual to “worse treatment” or “harm,” and that the harm be “significant.”
In Muldrow v. St. Louis, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that the harm be “significant” would be adding words to the statute that Congress enacted, holding:
To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment. The transfer must have left the transferee worse off but not significantly so. The transferee does not need to establish an elevated threshold of harm. This would impose a new requirement on a Title VII claimant, so that the law as applied demands something more of them than the law as written.
No. 22-193, slip opinion, at p. 6.
What Now for Employers?
Employers should ensure that they have Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination policies and that any transfers are for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons.*Please contact ZR Team member Natalie M. Stevens (nms@zrlaw.com) or Kimana A. Bowen (kab@zrlaw.com) [1] if you have questions relating to the interplay of job transfers and Title VII.
[1] Presently barred in D.C. only.