Supreme Court Ruling May Lower the Bar for Future Adverse Action

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.

What is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

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.

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

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:

• Updated legal interpretation: It held that an employee need not demonstrate any sort of “heightened bar” to prevail on a on a Title VII discrimination claim; specifically, the employee didn’t need to make a showing of "material," "serious," "significant," or "substantial" harm. 
• New standards for employees and employers: It acknowledged that this decision lowers the bar that Title VII plaintiffs must meet and, therefore, holds employers to higher standards for workplace equality.
• Future Implications: The Court noted that "many cases will come out differently” based on the outcome 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.

Potential future implications for employers

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.