In a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, a police sergeant alleged that she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex.

About the Case

The sergeant was transferred out of the new intelligence division where she had worked for several years and was replaced by a male police officer. In her new job, while her rank and pay remained the same, she alleged she lost several perks and had lesser responsibility and authority in the new position. Ultimately, she brought a claim alleging she had been discriminated against under Title VII concerning the terms or conditions of her employment.

The district court originally granted the city summary judgment, which was upheld by the Eighth Circuit, alleging that she could not show a “material significant disadvantage.”  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, notes that discrimination means to be “treated worse,” and that while there must be harm with respect to an identical term or condition of employment, that harm “need not be significant.” The court clearly states that the law does not establish “an elevated threshold of harm.”

The Big Picture

When assessing changes in employment, demotion and restructuring pay alone may not be sufficient to show that no harm has occurred to an employee as part of that process. Employers need to look to broader factors including scheduling, responsibilities, and the other intangibles of the position when weighing risks.