Legal Action Taken Alleging Discrimination of Medical Cannabis Use of New Jersey Candidate
Employee and candidate discrimination for state-legal marijuana use has continued to be a hot-button issue over the last few years. Recently, we...
With Verified Credentials' mobile-first candidate experience, you meet candidates where it's most convenient. Learn how easy we make it.
Ongoing monitoring of driving records can help employers avoid risk and improve driver safety. Learn about the benefits of adding Verified Credentials' newest solution to your screening strategy.
Learn the latest trends in employment background checks. This report uses real-life usage data to uncover how employers are screening across industries.
Verified Credentials is a leading background screening company. Since 1984, we’ve helped validate and secure relationships through the use of our comprehensive screening solutions. We offer a wide variety of background checks, verifications, and innovative screening tools.
Our accreditation confirms that our policies, processes, and employee training meet rigorous industry compliance standards.
2 min read
Verified Credentials May 15, 2024
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. The decision resolves a split among Federal circuit courts regarding the threshold of harm required for an employee to challenge a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on protected characteristics. However, the recent Muldrow decision may change the implications of the Act for employees and employers in future rulings.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to reject or dismiss anyone from employment or to treat any individual unfavorably in matters of pay, employment terms, conditions, or benefits based on the individual's gender, among other protected characteristics.
Federal circuit courts have developed varying requirements for employees to establish in order prove harm when challenging a job transfer under Title VII. Notably, many circuits have historically demanded a showing of "significant," "material," or "serious" injury for a plaintiff to succeed in their claim.
In Muldrow, the plaintiff challenged her transfer based on gender discrimination, citing changes in her responsibilities, perks, and work schedule as sources of harm. The district court and the Eighth Circuit ultimately held that she could not demonstrate a "materially significant disadvantage" resulting from the transfer and thus rejected her Title VII claim.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that discriminatory transfer claims under Title VII require only that “the transfer brought about some harm.” The Supreme Court explicitly highlighted three consequences of this decision:
The Court ’s ruling does not explain what "some harm" means, but it does make it clear that it does not mean "material," "serious," "significant," or "substantial" harm. Justice Kavanaugh explained that he believes that anyone who has been transferred because of a protected trait "should easily be able to show some additional harm – whether in money, time, satisfaction, schedule, convenience, commuting costs or time, prestige, status, career prospects, interest level, perks, professional relationships, networking opportunities, effects on family obligations, or the like."
To learn more about Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, take a closer look here.
This landmark Supreme Court decision may be a positive step toward fostering a workplace environment that upholds equality and fairness for all individuals. It also underscores the importance of fair and equitable treatment in the workplace, irrespective of an individual's protected characteristics.
The decision may also impact future rulings by lowering the bar for employees to assert Title VII discrimination claims, potentially leading to increased litigation and the need to assess current HR policies and practices. Employers should monitor the evolution of adverse action and consult with their legal counsel to understand the implications of this ruling and ensure their practices comply to avoid adverse action.
Employee and candidate discrimination for state-legal marijuana use has continued to be a hot-button issue over the last few years. Recently, we...
A recent case, Doe v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles, could spark further discussions on how California reports motor vehicle record checks. The...
The Delaware Clean Slate Act marks a significant shift in the state’s approach to criminal record expungement. The new legislation automates the...
We have previously written about Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that dove...
If you do business in Gainesville, Florida, you could join the collective of cities and states adopting Fair Chance Hiring Laws. If the proposed...
On April 24, 2023, the City of Chicago published an amended ban-the-box ordinance that limits the use of conviction and arrest records by employers....