In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the standard in many jurisdictions that to state a case for discrimination based on a job transfer or other changes that an employer makes to the terms and conditions of a worker’s employment, the employee need not state a case for “significant harm,” but rather, “some harm,” thus potentially increasing the number of discrimination cases that may survive at the initial pleading stages.
In Muldrow, the Court held that even if an employee’s job transfer, or denied job transfer did not result in the employee’s loss of pay or benefits, the transfer could still have caused “some harm” to the employee. Previously, some Courts held that the employee must have suffered “significant harm,” a higher level of proof of harm than is now required to show that discrimination occurred. In Muldrow, the plaintiff was transferred out of her police plainclothes officer position, where she also received steady hours and other benefits, such as being deputized as a task force officer with the FBI. The City transferred Muldrow to a new position that gave her the same rank and pay as before. However, she had to work a rotating shift that included weekend hours and was given fewer responsibilities than her previous position.
After her previous position was given to a male police officer, Muldrow alleged that Title VII had been violated because of her sex. The trial court and district court of appeals both ruled against her, holding that the actions taken against Muldrow did not show that she had suffered a “materially significant disadvantage” in light of prior holdings. However, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the actions taken by the police department constituted an adverse action under Title VII. The Court further held that the standard of harm applied in the courts below was incorrect because they required a “serious” or “significant” harm to occur to a plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that it should apply the Title VII standard for a retaliation claim, holding that the retaliation standard did not apply because retaliation claims were specifically intended to address situations where employees would be dissuaded from “making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
The Court did not specifically limit this ruling to Title VII discrimination job transfer cases. In light of this, employers should review all changes to the terms and conditions of employment and modifications to an employee’s job duties in light of this ruling. As always, employers need to document the legitimate reasons for making such changes, even where the change does not involve a decrease in the employee’s pay or a demotion in job title. When in doubt as to how an employee will perceive a change, employers should seek legal counsel to guide them in this area and in making other decisions, such as whether to terminate an employee.
The attorneys at Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling are ready to help. Please contact Kristina Curry at 937.223.1130 or email kcurry@pselaw.com
