In order to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiffs must show that they suffered an adverse employment action. When this action involves a termination, salary reduction or other tangible monetary disadvantage, this burden is relatively easy to plead. What happens, however, when the alleged discriminatory act does not result in any obvious financial or career penalty? On Wednesday, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that a lateral transfer can constitute an adverse employment action, even when the employer claims that the two jobs are functionally equivalent.

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the plaintiff was a police officer who claimed sex discrimination based on a forced transfer to another role. The employer claimed that this was not an adverse employment action because the new job had the same pay and maintained the plaintiff’s rank within the police force. She replied that the job had fewer duties, less prestige, and less opportunity for advancement. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the transfer did not result in a material significant disadvantage to the plaintiff or to her career.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision, concluding that the Eighth Circuit had applied an erroneous interpretation of Title VII’s adverse action requirement. The law prohibits discrimination that affects terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, even when the plaintiff’s pay is not affected. Several other federal appellate circuits use tests comparable to the Eight Circuit, and this decision will lower the bar for employees to assert claims of discrimination in situations where there does not appear to be an obvious negative impact on the plaintiff’s job.

[View source.]