In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court resolved a split across various circuit courts in holding that Title VII prohibits discriminatory job transfers even when the employee is not subjected to significant harm.

In Muldrow v. St. Louis, a female police officer alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII when she was transferred to a lateral position in a different department because her new supervisor preferred a man in the role. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the officer’s case, holding that she was not caused significant harm by the lateral transfer since she maintained the same title, salary, and benefits and was only subjected to minor changes in working conditions.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 8th Circuit, holding that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII as discriminatory must show that the transfer caused some harm, but that the harm need not be significant. In ruling this way, the Supreme Court held that the 8th Circuit added a new requirement to Title VII not contemplated by the law by requiring the officer to establish significant harm. The Supreme Court noted that Title VII’s text nowhere establishes such a high threshold.

While the Supreme Court’s holding was specific to challenging a transfer as discriminatory under Title VII, when viewed in concert with last summer’s ruling on diversity, equity and inclusion in education, employers should be aware of a trend of lowering thresholds across the spectrum in discrimination claims. This may result in increased claims related to promotion decisions, discipline, work assignments, and other similar employment decisions. Employers should review their EEO policies and ensure that supervisors understand the nuances of the law when making decisions. 

 *           *           *

If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact our Labor & Employment attorneys or the primary EGS attorney with whom you work.