The US Supreme Court decided Friday that it would take up Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case determining whether an employee can sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for discrimination based on bias-motivated transfers in the workplace.
In Friday’s order, the court stated, “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?”
This question is a narrowing of the original scope of the ruling proposed by Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow in her petition for a grant of certiorari. Muldrow originally requested the Court rule on the question, “Does Title VII prohibit discrimination as to all ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,’ or is its reach limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees?”
The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Muldrow’s petition for a writ of certiorari, writing, “This Court now has the opportunity to recognize that Title VII protects against employers’ selective allocation of any benefits and burdens, including nonmonetary benefits, based on race, sex, religion, or other unlawful criteria.”
The United States government also filed an amicus brief in favor of certiorari, writing:
All forced job transfers and denials of job transfers based on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin are actionable under Title VII…The Eighth Circuit’s contrary rule—that a plaintiff must prove that a discriminatory job transfer resulted in a “materially significant disadvantage,” has no foundation in Title VII’s text, structure, or purpose.
The case revolves around Muldrow’s employment with the St. Louis, Missouri, Police Department (SLMPD). Muldrow alleges she was transferred out of a position with an intelligence unit with prestige and desirability to a different department to make way for a man who wanted the position, thereby discriminating against her based on her gender. While both positions had similar monetary benefits such as salary and health insurance, Muldrow claims that the new position had significantly less cache, opportunity for upward mobility and scheduling flexibility. The SLMPD insisted in its brief in opposition that the transfer was routine and not motivated by Muldrow’s sex.
The US District Court Eastern District of Missouri ruled in favor of the SLMPD in 2019, granting summary judgment. The court claimed that Muldrow had not successfully presented enough evidence that the transfer was pretextual and did not successfully demonstrate the harm caused by the transfer. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling, claiming that “Ultimately, Sergeant Muldrow is unable to point to any “injury or harm” that resulted from the City of St. Louis’s failure to transfer her from the Fifth District.”
The court has yet to decide on whether it will hear a similar case, Davis v. Legal Services Alabama, Inc., dealing with whether paid suspensions may be adverse employment actions under Title VII. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court dismissal of the suit, with Davis requesting a writ of certiorari in 2022.
