Update: Supreme Court Revises Title VII's Decades-Old "Adverse Employment Action" Standard For Discriminatory Transfers

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its decision in this case and, in doing so, modified the standard required to prove employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to job transfers. See Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. —, 144 S. Ct. 967 (2024).

The Muldrow Ruling

Prior to Muldrow, for a Plaintiff to make out a Title VII discrimination claim based on an alleged discriminatory job transfer, the Plaintiff was required to show that the transfer resulted in some sort of material, objective, or tangible harm to the Plaintiff.

In Muldrow, the Court rejected this notion. The Court's opinion reiterated the familiar principle that "to make out a Title VII discrimination claim [in the job transfer context], a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment." However, the Court ruled, a "transferee does not have to show . . . that the harm incurred was "significant[,]"serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar."

Notably, the Court did not wholesale adopt Muldrow's argument that the fact of a transfer alone constitutes discrimination. Rather, the Court reasoned that, to be actionable under Title VII, a "transfer must have left [the Plaintiff] worse off, but need not have left [the Plaintiff] significantly so." Consequently, a Plaintiff must still show some harm, but need not prove that the identified harm was "significant," "substantial," or "material."

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's April 2024 decision in Muldrow marks a significant departure from the definition of "adverse employment action" that has been in place for nearly 30 years. When considering employee job transfers, employers should therefore be mindful of the fact that such transfers could potentially be found to constitute adverse employment actions that support an employment discrimination claim. Accordingly, when transferring workers, employers should take steps to articulate and document the business reasons for such transfers, just as they would do with employment terminations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Update: Supreme Court Revises Title VII's Decades-Old "Adverse Employment Action" Standard For Discriminatory Transfers

United States Employment and HR

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More