In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri may have a substantial impact on employers. Employers nationwide should be aware of the new standard, implement internal processes to avoid discrimination claims, and understand how these changes will impact future personnel decisions.
What Is Title VII?
Most employers know that it is unlawful to discriminate against employees on the basis of a protected class, e.g., gender, sex, race, national origin, or religion. Fewer may know that this prohibition stems from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. To prove discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that:
- they are a member of a protected class,
- they were qualified for the job they held,
- they suffered an adverse employment action, and
- there are circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.
An adverse action is a type of negative employment action. Typical examples might include termination, demotion, discipline, or wage reduction.
Case Summary
In Muldrow, Sergeant Muldrow brought suit against her employer, the St. Louis Police Department, claiming that the Department’s decision to involuntarily transfer her to a different position was discriminatory. Muldrow worked for nine years in the Intelligence Division until 2017, when the new commander of the Division requested that she be transferred out of the unit and replaced by a male officer. In the Intelligence Division, Muldrow worked an 8-hour workday, Monday through Friday, where she investigated public corruption and human trafficking cases alongside high-ranking officials. However, upon being transferred out of the Division, her responsibilities shifted to administrative and supervisory tasks. Her pay and rank remained the same, but she now had fewer investigative and networking opportunities than her role previously comprised. Her new position also required her to work a rotating schedule involving weekends and no longer allowed her access to a take-home car.
Upon hearing the case, the District Court granted summary judgment to the City of St. Louis on the grounds that Muldrow could not demonstrate the requisite level of harm to prove that she suffered an adverse employment action. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that Muldrow could not prove discrimination because the transfer did not cause her a “materially significant disadvantage.” The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Title VII does not require the harm incurred by the employee to be “significant.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer must show that the change brought about “some” harm to the terms and conditions of their employment. However, the harm need not exceed a heightened bar, meaning the harm does not need to be “significant,” “serious,” or “substantial.” The Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for proceedings in line with its decision.
Possible Employer Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision opens the door to a broader spectrum of employment discrimination cases. Even where an employee does not suffer a reduction in pay or benefits, they may still be able to show discrimination where a change negatively impacts their terms and conditions of employment (no matter how minimal). Changes in work schedule, access to opportunities, and other benefits may constitute adverse actions that support a discrimination claim. Employers should review their employment policies to make sure they adequately address the broader standard. It is also important to memorialize the driving business reasons behind alterations to an employee’s position, schedule, responsibilities, and/or benefits to ensure a strong defense against an allegation of discrimination. Further, where a manager (or a demanding customer) is planning to implement personnel changes, it is more important than ever to involve HR and, where appropriate, legal counsel.
If you have any questions about employment practices or employee allegations of discrimination, please contact Sarah Nash, Georgianne Kokenis, or another member of PilieroMazza’s Labor & Employment practice group.
_____________________
Looking for practical insights on gaining a competitive advantage through a deeper understanding of the government’s compliance requirements? Check out PilieroMazza’s podcasts “GovCon Live!” and “Clocking in with PilieroMazza.”
