U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Expand Employers' Exposure to Title VII Lawsuits Over Job Transfers

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Expand Employers’ Exposure to Title VII Lawsuits Over Job Transfers

New York, N.Y. (April 23, 2024) - Recent years have seen multiple court rulings addressing whether certain allegedly discriminatory and retaliatory actions by employers that do not cause significant harm to the employee can nevertheless be the subject of a viable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended. Some Circuit Courts of Appeals, such as the Third and Eighth Circuits, had held that an employee who contends that an involuntary job transfer was discriminatory cannot state a claim unless there is something akin to a materially significant disadvantage occasioned by the transfer. In assessing retaliation claims, courts have often held that an employer decision short of termination or demotion will not be actionable unless it constitutes adverse employment action.

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the materially significant disadvantage analysis, holding in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that employees are not required to show that the harm sustained was significant and instead must plead and prove only that the transfer brought about some disadvantageous change in a term or condition of their employment. The Court based this decision in part on the language of Title VII, which renders actionable conduct that discriminates against individuals without establishing a heightened threshold of harm that would render the conduct actionable. In the case before the high court, the plaintiff alleged that she sustained some harm from the allegedly discriminatory transfer because she had been a plainclothes officer working for the St. Louis Police Department in its Intelligence Division, but after being transferred to the Patrol Division she was required to wear a uniform and lost her set schedule and FBA credentials, status and car.

As a result of this ruling, it is expected that more EEOC charges and federal lawsuits will be filed by employees displeased with their transfers because many will be able to plausibly allege one or more ways in which the transfer caused them some harm. Examples of such disadvantages could include having to work under a new supervisor, being required to work a different schedule, and being subject to altered job duties or assignments. It is anticipated that federal courts will extend this ruling to other claims predicated on allegedly actionable employment actions that are short of termination or demotion, such as changing the location from which the employee works even if the employee retains the same title and compensation, based on averments that the plaintiffs sustained some harm.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that plaintiffs must still show that they sustained some injury that impacts the terms and conditions of their employment and, of course, the plaintiffs always bear the burden to prove that the employer acted for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. Additionally, given the lack of clarity as to what will constitute “some harm” sufficient to support a claim based on an involuntary transfer or similar employer action, we may see increased motion practice concerning whether the claimed amount or type of harm suffices, and some courts may well hold that what constitutes a sufficient amount of harm to render the employer conduct actionable should be a question for the jury and not appropriately decided on a motion for summary judgment.

For more informaiton on this decision, contact the author of this alert. Visit our Labor & Employment Practice page to learn more about our capabilities in this area.

Author:

Peter T. Shapiro, Partner and Regional Co-Chair of Labor & Employment Practice