SCOTUS Addresses Title VII Standard

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, holding that an employee need not show that their transfer to a different role caused a “significant” employment disadvantage to sustain a claim under Title VII. 

Muldrow’s Transfer and Underlying Decisions

The relevant facts of Muldrow are relatively simple.  Sergeant Muldrow worked in the St. Louis Police Department’s specialized Intelligence Division for nearly ten years.  In the underlying claim, Sgt. Muldrow alleged she was transferred by a new supervisor from the Intelligence Division, where she had previously been praised for her work, to a uniformed job, because she is a woman.  Despite not receiving a change in pay or rank, Sgt. Muldrow brought suit under Title VII, claiming that she had suffered sex discrimination regarding the terms or conditions of her employment.  Specifically, Sgt. Muldrow noted that her responsibilities changed: instead of working with senior officials on departmental priorities, she was supervising neighborhood patrol officers and conducting some patrol work herself.  Sgt. Muldrow viewed these new duties as less prestigious and claimed they gave her few opportunities to work on important investigations and network with commanding officers.  Given the change of duties, she also lost her status as an FBI Task Force Officer and the car that accompanied that appointment.  Finally, Sgt. Muldrow’s schedule became less regular, with a rotating schedule involving weekend shifts.

The District Court found that the above changes were not sufficient to support a claim under Title VII, noting that the transfer needed to effect a “significant” change in working conditions that produced a “material employment disadvantage.”  As there was no evidence of change in salary or rank, or that the change of duties harmed her career prospects, the District Court found Sgt. Muldrow could not meet that standard. The Court noted that the other changes (e.g., the schedule change and loss of a vehicle) were only “minor alterations of employment”. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

SCOTUS Holds That Title VII Does not Require a Transferee to Show Significant Harm

The Supreme Court granted certiorari “to resolve a Circuit split over whether an employee challenging a transfer under Title VII must meet a heightened threshold of harm”.  The Court unanimously voted to vacate the judgments of the lower courts in an opinion written by Justice Kagan, with concurrences by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.

The Court held that while 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.”  Importantly, the Court noted that “Title VII’s text nowhere establishes that high bar.”  Rather, the Court noted that “‘[d]iscriminate against’ means treat worse, here based on sex.” With respect to Sgt. Muldrow specifically, the Court concluded that the transfer must have left her worse off, but not significantly so, and that her allegations “meet that test with room to spare.”

Potential Consequences

In multiple places in the opinion, the Court repeatedly emphasizes what Title VII requires in the context of transfers.  Therefore, it is possible that lower courts may interpret this decision as applying solely in the context of forced transfers.  However, much of the language focuses on the broader intent of Title VII and specifically what it means to “otherwise . . . discriminate against an individual with respect to his . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”  It therefore remains to be seen how employees may attempt to leverage this decision in other contexts where employer decisions do not have a pecuniary impact, but otherwise allegedly “treat[] a person worse” because of a protected trait.   

The Firm will continue to monitor how the lower courts interpret this decision.  Employers with questions about this case or its potential impact should contact Kristina Grimshaw at kgrimshaw@fglawllc.com or any attorney at the firm.

 DISCLAIMER: This alert is provided to clients and friends of the firm for informational purposes only and the distribution of this alert is not intended to, and does not, establish an attorney-client relationship. This alert also does not provide or offer legal advice or opinions on any specific factual situations or matters. This communication may be considered Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.