On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., the justices unanimously decided to vacate a lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by plaintiff, Jatonya Muldrow, and directed the trial court to reconsider her case. Importantly, the Supreme Court held that while an employee must show some evidence of harm in the job transfer, that harm does not need to be “significant” or “material.”

Case Background

Muldrow was a police sergeant at the St. Louis Police Department when she was transferred from her job as a plainclothes officer in the Intelligence Division in 2017. Muldrow had worked in the Intelligence Division since 2008, investigating public corruption and human trafficking cases, and had also worked in other roles at the Department. However, even though Muldrow had done her job well and had received high employment evaluations, the unit commander ordered her transfer out of the Intelligence Division, justifying the transfer by describing Muldrow’s work as “very dangerous.”. Despite her pay and rank remaining unchanged, Muldrow objected to the transfer and claimed that she had been transferred in order to place a male officer in her position.

Muldrow sued the police department and alleged that she had been transferred to a less desirable role because of her sex. She claimed that she had been harmed by the transfer, as her transition out of the Intelligence Division resulted in her loss of her FBI status and the vehicle that came with said FBI status and also the additional requirement of working nights and weekends. In her previous role in the Intelligence Division, Muldrow worked a typical Monday through Friday workweek.

The federal district court judge ruled in favor of the St. Louis Police Department, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. In its decision, the Eighth Circuit found that because Muldrow could not provide any evidence that showed a reduction in her title, salary, or benefits, the alleged harm she experienced was not “significant” or “material” and thus could not serve as the basis for her discrimination claim. The court additionally stated that the transfer had resulted in only minor changes in her working conditions.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision and laid out a new and potentially more expansive test for lower courts to implement when determining whether a discrimination claim based on a job transfer could proceed to trial. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the six-member majority and reiterated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does include a ban on discrimination in the “terms” and “conditions” of employment. Therefore, under that definition, the technical changes in Muldrow’s job duties through her transfer would be covered.

The Court also held that the belief enforced by the Eighth Circuit and other courts that a discrimination claim must show “significant,” or “material” harm was too stringent. Referencing the text of Title VII, the Court further held that the statute targeted any practices that treated a person worse because of a protected characteristic. Therefore, if an employee can show some type of harm because of sex, religion, race, or national origin, the Court would deem that sufficient. Justice Kagan elaborates by stating that “[h]ad Congress wanted to limit the liability for job transfers to those causing a significant disadvantage, it could have done so,” and that the court “does not get to make that judgment” by rewriting the statute. The Court reiterated that Title VII would still require evidentiary support for the harm and that the decision only focused on the standard to be applied.

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh wrote opinions concurring with the result but not the reasoning.

The Impact of the Muldrow Decision on Employers

The Muldrow decision lowered the standard that discrimination claims based on job transfers must meet to escape dismissal. Nevertheless, the employee must still show some injury and the transfer must have left the employee in a worse position. Employers should carefully review each employee transfer and ensure that the transfer is (1) voluntary or (2) if involuntary, supported by a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason. Furthermore, as lower courts begin to interpret Muldrow and determine what type of job actions constitute “some harm,” employers should review their handbook policies regarding job transfers and closely evaluate any changes made to an employee’s terms and conditions of employment that may result from a transfer.