Supreme Court Eases Burden on Plaintiffs in Employment Discrimination Claims

In April, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, an employment discrimination case involving a sergeant in the St. Louis police department who alleged that she was unlawfully transferred out of her role because of her sex. The case likely will have significant repercussions for both employees and employers. Here, our Richmond employment lawyers explain the case and what it means for employment anti-discrimination law.

Sex Discrimination Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful 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…sex.” Sex discrimination includes a variety of behaviors, including disparate treatment (i.e., intentional discrimination), disparate impact (i.e., implementing facially neutral policies that disproportionately adversely impact a certain group), and hostile work environment (i.e., creating a pervasive and intolerable atmosphere of harassment or discrimination). Retaliation against employees who object to sex discrimination is also an unlawful form of employment discrimination.

To prevail on a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII, an employee generally must show:

They were a member of a protected class
They were qualified for their position
They suffered an adverse employment action
Employees who were not members of their protected class were treated differently by the employer

Employees often argue that transfers to different roles or different departments are adverse employment actions in employment discrimination cases. In such cases, the Supreme Court has held that the transfer (or other employment action alleged to be adverse) must bring about some “disadvantageous” change in employment terms or conditions. In other words, the employee must show some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment.

Various courts have interpreted the “disadvantageous” requirement differently. Some hold that the harm suffered must be “significant,” “material,” or “serious,” while others do not impose a heightened standard, requiring only a showing that some harm occurred. For more information about the standard for proving harm in employment discrimination cases, please contact a Richmond employment lawyer.

Muldrow’s Sex Discrimination Claim

Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow was a plainclothes officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division, where she investigated public corruption and human trafficking cases, oversaw the Gang Unit, and served as head of the Gun Crimes Unit. She was also deputized as a Task Force Officer with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which afforded her FBI credentials, an unmarked take-home vehicle, and the authority to pursue investigations outside St. Louis.

In 2017, Muldrow’s new supervisor sought to replace her with a male police officer, who he believed would be a better fit for the Intelligence Division’s “dangerous” work. Muldrow also alleged that her new supervisor referred to her as “Mrs.” Muldrow instead of “Sergeant” Muldrow. The Department then transferred Muldrow against her wishes to a uniformed job. Her rank and pay remained the same in her new position, but her responsibilities, perks, and schedule changed. She now supervised the activities of neighborhood patrol officers, including approving arrests, reviewing reports, and handling other administrative matters. Because she no longer worked in the Intelligence Division, she lost her FBI status. While she worked a traditional Monday-to-Friday schedule previously, she now worked on a rotating schedule that includes weekend shifts.

Muldrow brought a Title VII action against the City of St. Louis alleging that her ouster from the Intelligence Division amounted to unlawful discrimination against her based on her sex with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment. Specifically, she alleged the following adverse effects:

She had been moved out of a premier position into a less prestigious and more administrative role
She had fewer opportunities to work on important investigations and to network with high-ranking officers
She lost material benefits, including her standard workweek schedule and her take-home car

The trial court ruled against Muldrow, holding that she needed to show that her transfer effected a “significant” change in her working conditions that produced a “material employment disadvantage.” Because she experienced no change in salary and rank, the court found that she did not meet that heightened burden. The court found that the harms she experienced were minor alterations rather than material harms. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the changes in her responsibilities were not significant enough to support a Title VII claim because they did not result in a diminution of her title, salary, or benefits.

Court Holds That the Harm an Employee Suffers Need Not Be “Significant”

The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals, holding that nothing in the text of Title VII requires an employee who alleges discrimination to show that the harm they suffered was “significant.” The Court explained that the term “discriminate against” means “treat worse” but says nothing about how much worse. For courts to require plaintiffs to show that the harm suffered was “significant” is to add words to the Civil Rights Act that Congress did not intend. If you believe that you have been discriminated against at work — regardless of whether the harm you suffered was “significant” — you should consider contacting a Richmond employment lawyer.

The Implications of Muldrow for Employers and Employees

Muldrow resolved judicial disagreements on the degree of harm a plaintiff must suffer to make out a Title VII discrimination claim. Plaintiffs in such cases no longer have to show that their harm was significant. Instead, plaintiffs only need to show that they suffered some harm — i.e., that the transfer left them worse off but not necessarily significantly worse off. As such, Muldrow generally will make it easier for employees to prevail in employment discrimination actions against their employers, as they need only show that some harm occurred to the terms and conditions of their employment.

Speak to a Richmond Employment Lawyer for Information About Pursuing and Defending Employment Discrimination Claims

For more information about employment discrimination claims from an employee-side or employer-side perspective, please contact a Richmond employment lawyer at Pierce / Jewett by calling 804-502-2320 or using our online contact form.