The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued its much-anticipated decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, where it unanimously held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of gender must only show that the transfer brought about some harm, regarding an identifiable term or condition of employment, but the harm need not be significant. This ruling represents a substantial lessening of the prior “adverse action” standard to show actionable harm under Title VII. In its reasoning, the Court rejected the prior “heightened” showing of actionable harm, which was used to bar prior claims that failed to articulate or prove significant harm, such as the loss of pay or for another tangible job benefit.
Background of the Case: Sergeant Muldrow’s Transfer
Sergeant Muldrow was transferred out of the police department intelligence division; and was reassigned to a uniform job in the police department; her rank and pay did not change, but her responsibilities and work schedule did change; notably, instead of working with high-ranking intelligence division employees, she was given the responsibility of supervising the day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the employer’s summary judgment motion, rejecting Sergeant Muldrow’s claim, holding that Sergeant Muldrow could not show that she had experienced a significant change in working conditions and that merely showing that she had experienced “only minor changes in working conditions,” would not state a viable claim for gender discrimination under Title VII.
The Supreme Court’s Reversal and Its Implications
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Sergeant Muldrow’s gender discrimination claim must only implicate some “disadvantageous” change in an employment term or condition. In other words, under the new relaxed actionable harm standard, the employee need not show economic or tangible harm. The broader understanding of the “adverse action” standard may open the door to additional claims of discrimination, where there was still some harm but not “significant,” “substantial,” or “material” harm. While the Muldrow case narrowly applies to employment and or job transfers, the Court’s reasoning applies to other employment actions as well, substantially changing the legal landscape for the consideration and evaluation of Title VII claims.
Consult with Mark J. Berkowitz for Expert Legal Guidance
If you believe you have been a victim of gender discrimination or any other form of workplace discrimination, it’s essential to understand how this ruling might affect your case. Contact Mark J. Berkowitz, a dedicated and experienced Fort Lauderdale Employment Attorney, for a consultation. Call us today at (954) 527-0570 to discuss your legal options and protect your rights.