On April 17, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over the standard to apply to Title VII discrimination cases challenging job transfers, ruling that discriminatory workplace transfers are prohibited even if they do not cause “significant” harm.  In a unanimous decision, the Court rejected the “significant” employment disadvantage standard imposed by some circuits, reasoning that such standard does not align with the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  However, employees must still show some harm to bring a claim.

In Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____, No. 22-193 (April 17, 2024), a female police sergeant filed a sex discrimination action against the City of St. Louis arising from an unwanted departmental transfer.  Although she experienced no change in rank or salary, her responsibilities, schedule, and other job functions differed substantially. The trial court granted the City summary judgment, finding that Muldrow could not meet the heightened “significant” disadvantage test to invoke Title VII protections for workplace transfers.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Disapproving of the heightened “significant” employment disadvantage test, Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, reasoned that “[a]lthough an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.  Title VII’s text nowhere establishes that high bar.”  The Court engaged in a strict textual analysis in support of its Opinion.

Courts can no longer require a transferee to show “significant” harm “[o]r serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar.”

In separate concurring opinions, Justices Thomas and Alito suggested that the majority opinion is not a departure from the standard applied to Title VII transfer claims.  In response, the majority opinion explained, “this decision changes the legal standard used in any circuit that has previously required ‘significant,’ ‘material,’ or ‘serious’ injury,” and by lowering the bar, “many cases will come out differently.”

Observers believe this decision may lead to an increase in the filing of workplace discrimination cases, which, prior to this decision, did not survive dismissal or summary judgment in some circuits based on the heightened standard. Further, determining what “some harm” means will be left to the lower courts to flesh out.  

The authors will continue to track developments and trends in this area.