Supreme Court Rules Mandatory Job Transfer Can Violate Title VII Even if No Significant Harm to the Employee

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in all terms, conditions or privileges of employment, not just those decisions that cause materially significant disadvantages for employees. The Court held that the standard of proof for a Title VII discrimination claim is that the employee must show that “some harm” has occurred relative to a term or condition of employment, but the employee does not need to show that the harm was significant.

This case involves the victim of a discriminatory transfer. Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, of the St. Louis Police Department, filed a lawsuit against the Department, alleging that she was the victim of sex discrimination because she was involuntarily transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a patrol position so her supervisor could hire a man for her job. Although the Department kept Muldrow’s rank and pay the same in the new position, her responsibilities, perks, and schedule were less favorable. The prior courts hearing this matter had held against Sergeant Muldrow because the transfer did not cause her a materially significant disadvantage, as it did not result in a diminution to her title, salary, or benefits and had caused only minor changes in working conditions.

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded those lower court holdings in a unanimous decision, and rejected the heightened legal standard some appellate courts have imposed on Title VII claims challenging discriminatory job transfers.

The Supreme Court held that the language of Title VII required Muldrow to show only that the transfer brought about some disadvantageous change in an employment term or condition based on sex.  The court confirmed that Title VII’s text nowhere establishes a higher standard of proof, and to demand “significance” is to inappropriately add words to the statute Congress enacted.

This holding will make it easier for an aggrieved employee to proceed with a lawsuit alleging that a mandatory transfer was discriminatory.  Claims may also include decisions like assignment of clients and major projects, appointment to task groups or committees, and other job responsibilities that don’t directly impact pay or promotions.