The issue for the justices was whether the statute guards against all discriminatory job transfers or requires an additional showing in court by the employee that the involuntary move caused a “significant disadvantage,” such as harm to career prospects or a change in salary or rank.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said that higher standard applied by some lower courts was wrong and employees instead must only show some harm.
“Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail,” Kagan wrote, “she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.”
In addition to civil rights groups, employment attorneys and some conservatives had been closely watching the case, believing that a broad ruling for the police sergeant could lead to an increase in reverse discrimination claims against workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow sued the St. Louis Police Department after she was transferred in 2017 out of the intelligence division, a position that allowed her to be deputized as an FBI agent, work a steady weekday schedule and broadly investigate public corruption and human trafficking cases.
Muldrow said in court filings that her new assignment lacked the same prestige and benefits. Even though her pay remained the same, she lost her FBI privileges, had to work patrol and was assigned weekend shifts. Muldrow, who according to court filings was known as a “workhorse,” was replaced in the intelligence division by a male sergeant who previously worked with Muldrow’s male supervisor.
In her opinion Wednesday, Kagan wrote that Muldrow’s allegations meet the court’s new standard “with room to spare.”
“If those allegations are proved, she was left worse off several times over. It does not matter, as the courts below thought, that her rank and pay remained the same, or that she still could advance to other jobs,” Kagan wrote.
The decision is intended to lower to bar for employees to proceed in court with a discrimination claim, allowing lawsuits that failed under the old standard to presumably succeed.
Although the court’s judgment in favor of Muldrow was unanimous, three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh — each wrote separately to explain their differences with their colleagues’ reasoning and view of its potential impact.
Alito said he doubted the court’s decision would make a meaningful difference and expects lower court judges will “mind the words they use but will continue to do pretty much just what they have done for years.” He called the opinion “unhelpful” because lower court judges, he wrote, will struggle to apply the new standard of harm.
Thomas also said there was “little practical difference” between the court’s new test and the current practice of appeals court judges.
Kavanaugh said he would have gone further and not required any separate showing of harm.
Federal law, he wrote, “does not require a separate showing of some harm. The discrimination is harm.”
In Muldrow’s case, a District Court judge in Missouri had sided with the city, saying Muldrow had not proved that her transfer caused sufficient disadvantage. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed, finding that Muldrow could not proceed with her lawsuit because she failed to demonstrate that the transfer amounted to an “adverse employment action” that caused tangible harm.
The Supreme Court said Wednesday that nothing in the text of Title VII requires courts to distinguish between job transfers that cause “significant disadvantages and transfers causing not-so-significant ones.”
“And that difference can make a real difference for complaining transferees. Many forced transfers leave workers worse off respecting employment terms or conditions,” Kagan wrote.
The Supreme Court’s opinion sends Muldrow’s case back to the lower courts for additional proceedings that account for the high court ruling.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
