U.S. Supreme Court Decision Expands Grounds for Discrimination Claims to Include Job Transfers and Other Employment Actions

In a unanimous April 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it easier for employees to bring job discrimination claims related to lateral transfers and similar employment actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court rejected the heightened standard requiring employees to show a “significant disadvantage” from an employment action adopted by the Fourth Circuit and other federal appeals courts. Instead, it held that an employee only needs to demonstrate they suffered “some harm” with respect to the terms and conditions of employment to bring a Title VII lawsuit. This more expansive interpretation of what employment actions are prohibited under Title VII is likely to increase discrimination lawsuits over lateral transfers and other employment actions falling short of termination or demotion.

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: The Background Story

Jatonya Muldrow, a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department, worked in the intelligence division for 9 years before being transferred by a new commander. The commander wanted to bring in a male officer he had previously supervised. While transfers were common when leadership changed, Muldrow’s new assignment was not as desirable to her as her work in intelligence.

Although her rank and salary stayed the same, other aspects of her job changed:

• Instead of supervising intelligence work, she oversaw patrol officers’ day-to-day activities.
• She no longer worked with high-ranking officials or held FBI credentials for joint operations.
• Her schedule switched from a standard Monday-Friday daytime shift to a rotating schedule including weekends.
• She lost the department vehicle that came with FBI status.

Muldrow filed a Title VII sex discrimination suit against the department, alleging that it had transferred her because she was a woman.

The federal district court granted summary judgment to the city, ruling Muldrow failed to show the transfer produced a “material employment disadvantage.” The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing changes to Muldrow’s employment as “minor.”