The second in our series of 2024 employment law updates is the result of the United States Supreme Court case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 144 S.Ct. 967 (2024). The case creates a precedent that changes in an employee's working conditions do not have to be “materially significant” for a Plaintiff-employee to have an actionable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In this case, a female police officer with the St. Louis Police Department was transferred from a plain-clothes officer in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed patrol officer. There was no change in her rank or pay. She lost some benefits such as her take-home vehicle and deputy status with the FBI. Plaintiff was replaced in the Intelligence Division by a male officer whom the commander thought would be a better fit for the “dangerous work.” The female officer sued for sex discrimination under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment for the City-employer, finding plaintiff's transfer was not a significant change in her working conditions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, finding the transfer did not constitute a “materially significant change” in working conditions.
The United States Supreme Court reversed. The Court held Title VII prohibits discrimination “with respect to” terms or conditions of employment. There is no statutory requirement for the change to be “significant.” The Court stated a plaintiff has an actionable claim under Title VII if she can show a change in an identifiable term or condition of employment that left her worse off than before, but there is no requirement she be “significantly” worse off.
This case has been applied in some courts of appeal to make defendant employers less likely to prevail on summary judgment based on the absence of an adverse employment action, or in other words, based on the absence of a change in the terms or conditions of employment.
How does this case impact employers? Employers should be cautious when altering the terms or conditions of employees. Any change that creates some type of harm can be actionable if not applied to the employees uniformly. The change does not have to be a change in pay or schedule, just cause some loss to an employee.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment