SCOTUS Finds “Forced Transfers” With the Same Pay and Seniority May be Sufficiently Adverse to Establish Title VII Liability
In a unanimous employee-friendly decision, the United States Supreme Court has opened the door for a new wave of discrimination claims concerning “forced transfers” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
04.24.24
The Supreme Court’s decision, penned by Justice Kagan, rejects the legal standard previously imposed by various appellate courts requiring that employees show that they had experienced a “significant employment disadvantage” in order to assert discrimination claims based on forced transfers. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that, although employees still have to show “some harm,” they do not have to show a “significant, serious, or substantial” disadvantage in order to avail themselves of the protections of Title VII.
Background of Muldrow v. St. Louis
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Jatonya Muldrow, a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department (Department), filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Louis, Missouri (City) arguing that the Department had violated Title VII by transferring her to another role solely because of her sex. Despite maintaining the same pay and rank, Sergeant Muldrow argued that her responsibilities, perks and schedule were adversely affected by the transfer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that, under relevant precedent, Sergeant Muldrow could not show that the transfer resulted in a “material employment disadvantage.” The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, stating that Sergeant Muldrow had not suffered a “materially significant disadvantage” as her title, salary and benefits remained unaffected.
Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Forced Transfer Claims
On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, clarifying that employees alleging discrimination based on forced transfers must indeed demonstrate some level of harm. That said, the Court explained that employees need not meet the previous threshold of “significant, serious, or substantial” harm. Emphasizing Title VII’s purpose of preventing discrimination in employment terms, conditions and privileges, the Court highlighted that imposing a requirement of “significant harm” for such claims runs counter to Title VII’s language and intent. Thus, the Court concluded that Title VII does not demand an elevated threshold of harm for discrimination claims arising from forced transfers. Given the Supreme Court’s decision, employees may pursue discrimination claims based on forced transfers by demonstrating that they have suffered some identifiable harm regarding a term, condition or privilege of employment.
Implications and Take-A-Ways
The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis likely will lead to an uptick in discrimination lawsuits related to forced transfers, particularly in jurisdictions like the Third Circuit, where appellate courts had previously demanded a higher threshold of harm. This shift in legal precedent will require employers to tread cautiously when imposing an involuntary transfer on an employee. It is imperative for employers to be aware that such an action can subject the employer to potential liability on a claim of discrimination if the transfer decision was motivated by a characteristic protected by Title VII. Also, although this ruling does not prevent legitimate transfers, it does emphasize the importance of considering the impact forced transfer decisions may have on employees and ensuring that transfers are grounded in nondiscriminatory motives. Further, it is quite possible courts will begin to interpret other anti-discrimination statutes the same way. As the legal implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis continue to unfold, employers should be proactive and seek legal counsel prior to taking any significant actions regarding employee transfers. Additionally, conducting thorough reviews of transfer policies and procedures, providing training on nondiscriminatory practices, and fostering a culture of inclusivity can help mitigate the risk of discrimination claims and promote a positive workplace environment.
Members of the labor and employment practice group will continue to monitor these and other relevant developments in the law and, as always, are available to discuss any potential impact these developments may have on your organization.
Co-authors Lee Moylan, chair, and Monica Matias Quiñones, associate, are members of the labor & employment practice group at Klehr Harrison.