SCOTUS Lowers the Bar for Title VII Litigants
Partner, Chicago
In a groundbreaking decision with far-reaching implications, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision this week in Muldrow v City of St. Louis, setting a new precedent for litigants in cases involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The Court's decision has lowered the bar for plaintiffs seeking relief under Title VII in cases involving job transfers, upending decades of decisions in the lower courts that required “significant harm” had to be shown by employees. These lower courts had been split throughout the county on exactly how much harm amounted to “significant” harm, thus making the issue one the high Court was willing to tackle.
In this case, the Court examined whether a job transfer that does not result in a decrease in pay or benefits can still be considered discriminatory under Title VII. Muldrow argued that his transfer to a new position within the City of St. Louis Police Department was motivated by discriminatory intent, as he believed the new position was less desirable than his previous role because it stripped him of certain credentials and required him to patrol. The City of St. Louis argued that because the transfer did not result in a change to his pay or benefits, there was no adverse employment action. The District Court and Court of Appeals agreed with the City of St. Louis. Muldrow appealed to the Court, arguing that financial implications are not the only factors a court should examine when determining whether discrimination occurred.
In a closely watched decision, the Court sided with Muldrow, holding that even if a job transfer does not result in a tangible harm such as a pay cut, it can still be considered discriminatory if the employee can demonstrate that the transfer was motivated by factors such as race, gender, or other protected characteristics. Now, employees will only have to show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, meaning that employers will now have to tread more carefully when making job transfer decisions, as even seemingly minor changes in an employee's position could potentially lead to costly litigation if the employee believes, and can show, that the transfer was discriminatory in nature.
Furthermore, this decision emphasizes the importance of subjective perceptions in discrimination cases, underscoring the fact that discrimination can take many forms. Even seemingly neutral actions by employers can have a disparate impact on certain groups of employees. This ruling sends a clear message that even seemingly minor acts of discrimination will not be tolerated, and that employees have the right to challenge actions that they believe are motivated by discriminatory intent, regardless of the existence of financial repercussions to the employee by such acts.
Overall, the Court's decision represents a significant shift in the legal landscape for Title VII litigants, one that could signal implications for other civil rights statutes on both a state and federal level.
The full decision may be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf